Boris Sofman: Waymo, Cozmo, Self-Driving Cars, and the Future of Robotics
嘉宾：Boris Sofman
全文文稿 · 按对话顺序保留完整内容，深入理解上下文。
本篇目录24 章节
§01Transcript · 00:00–08:24§02Transcript · 08:25–16:39§03Transcript · 16:42–24:30§04Transcript · 24:33–32:38§05Transcript · 32:41–40:59§06Transcript · 41:00–48:57§07Transcript · 48:59–57:45§08Transcript · 57:49–1:06:34§09Transcript · 1:06:35–1:15:01§10Transcript · 1:15:03–1:22:39§11Transcript · 1:22:40–1:30:36§12Transcript · 1:30:37–1:38:00§13Transcript · 1:38:01–1:45:51§14Transcript · 1:45:54–1:53:34§15Transcript · 1:53:37–2:01:36§16Transcript · 2:01:38–2:09:58§17Transcript · 2:10:02–2:17:46§18Transcript · 2:17:48–2:26:36§19Transcript · 2:26:37–2:35:15§20Transcript · 2:35:18–2:43:13§21Transcript · 2:43:16–2:51:27§22Transcript · 2:51:30–2:59:15§23Transcript · 2:59:17–3:06:52§24Transcript · 3:06:53–3:14:07§01Transcript · 00:00–08:24
The following is a conversation with Boris Sofman,
who is the Senior Director of Engineering
and Head of Trucking at Waymo,
the autonomous vehicle company,
formerly the Google Self-Driving Car Project.
Before that, Boris was the co-founder and CEO of Anki,
a robotics company that created Cosmo,
which in my opinion,
is one of the most incredible social robots ever built.
It's a toy robot,
but one with an emotional intelligence
that creates a fun and engaging human-robot interaction.
It was truly sad for me to see Anki shut down when it did.
I had high hopes for those little robots.
We talk about this story
and the future of autonomous trucks,
vehicles, and robotics in general.
I spoke with Steve Viselli recently on episode 237
about the human side of trucking.
This episode looks more at the robotics side.
This is the Lex Friedman Podcast.
To support it,
please check out our sponsors in the description.
And now, here's my conversation with Boris Sofman.
Who is your favorite robot in science fiction,
books or movies?
- WALL-E and R2-D2,
where they were able to convey such an incredible degree
of intent, emotion, and kind of character attachment
without having any language whatsoever.
And just purely through the richness
of emotional interaction.
So those were fantastic.
And then the Terminator series,
just like really pretty wide range, right?
But I kind of love this dynamic
where you have this like incredible Terminator itself
that Arnold played.
And then he was kind of like the inferior,
like previous generation version
that was like totally outmatched,
you know, in terms of kind of specs by the new one,
but you know, still kind of like held his own.
And so it was kind of interesting where you realize
how many levels there are on the spectrum
from human to kind of potentials in AI and robotics
to futures.
And so, yeah, that movie really,
as much as it was like kind of a direct world in a way,
was actually quite fascinating, gets the imagination going.
- Well, from an engineering perspective,
both the movies you mentioned,
WALL-E and Terminator, the first one,
is probably achievable.
You know, humanoid robot,
maybe not with like the realism in terms of skin and so on,
but that humanoid form, we have that humanoid form.
It seems like a compelling form.
Maybe the challenge is it's super expensive to build,
but you can imagine, maybe not a machine of war,
but you can imagine Terminator type robots walking around.
And then the same, obviously, with WALL-E,
you've basically, so for people who don't know,
you created the company Anki
that created a small robot with a big personality
called Cosmo that just does exactly what WALL-E does,
which is somehow with very few basic visual tools
is able to communicate a depth of emotion.
And that's fascinating.
But then again, the humanoid form is super compelling.
So like Cosmo is very distant from a humanoid form.
And then the Terminator has a humanoid form.
And you can imagine both of those
actually being in our society.
- It's true.
And it's interesting because it was very intentional
to go really far away from human form
when you think about a character like Cosmo or like WALL-E,
where you can completely rethink
the constraints you put on that character,
what tools you leverage,
and then how you actually create a personality
and a level of intelligence interactivity
that actually matches the constraints that you're under,
whether it's mechanical or sensors or AI of the day.
- This is why I was always really surprised
by how much energy people put
towards trying to replicate human form in a robot,
because you actually take on some pretty significant
kind of constraints and downsides when you do that.
The first of which is obviously the cost,
where it's just the articulation of a human body
is just so magical in both the precision
as well as the dimensionality,
that to replicate that even in its reasonably close form
takes like a giant amount of joints and actuators
and motion and sensors and encoders and so forth.
But then you're almost like setting an expectation
that the closer you try to get to human form,
the more you expect the strengths to match.
And that's not the way AI works,
is there's places where you're way stronger
and there's places where you're weaker.
And by moving away from human form,
you can actually change the rules
and embrace your strengths and bypass your weaknesses.
- And at the same time,
the human form has way too many degrees of freedom
to play with.
It's kind of counterintuitive, just as you're saying,
but when you have fewer constraints,
it's almost harder to master the communication of emotion.
Like you see this with cartoons, like stick figures,
you can communicate quite a lot with just very minimal,
like two dots for eyes and a line for a smile.
I think you can almost communicate arbitrary levels
of emotion with just two dots and a line.
And like, that's enough.
And if you focus on just that,
you can communicate the full range.
And then you, like, if you do that,
then you can focus on the actual magic
of human and dot line interaction
versus all the engineering mess.
- That's right.
Like dimensionality, voice, all these sorts of things,
they actually become a crutch
where you get lost in a search space almost.
And so some of the best animators that we've worked with,
they almost like study when they come up,
kind of in building their expertise
by forcing these projects where all you have is like a ball
that can like kind of jump and manipulate itself
or like really, really like aggressive constraints
where you're forced to kind of extract
the deepest level of emotion.
And so in a lot of ways,
you know, when we thought about Cosmo,
I was like, you're right.
If we had to like describe it in like one small phrase,
it was bringing a Pixar character to life in the real world.
And so it's what we were going for.
And in a lot of ways, what was interesting is that
with like WALL-E, which we studied incredibly deeply,
and in fact, some of our team were, you know,
kind of had worked previously at Pixar and on that project,
they intentionally constrained WALL-E as well,
even though in an animated film,
you could do whatever you wanted to
because it forced you to like really saturate
the smaller amount of dimensions.
But you sometimes end up getting a far more beautiful output
because you're pushing at the extremes
of this emotional space in a way that you just wouldn't
because you get lost in a surface area
if you have like something
that is just infinitely articulable.
- So if we backtrack a little bit,
you thought of Cosmo in 2011,
in 2013, actually designed and built it.
What is Anki?
What is Cosmo?
I guess, who is Cosmo?
- Who is Cosmo?
- What was the vision behind this incredible little robot?
- We started Anki back in,
like while we were still in graduate school.
So myself and my two co-founders,
we were PhD students in the Robotics Institute
at Carnegie Mellon.
And so we were studying robotics, AI, machine learning,
kind of different areas.
One of my co-founders was working on walking robots,
you know, for a period of time.
And so we all had a bit of a really deep,
kind of a deeper passion for applications of robotics and AI
where there's like a spectrum
where there's people that get like really fascinated
by the theory of AI and machine learning robotics,
where whether it gets applied in the near future or not
is less of a kind of factor on them,
but they love the pursuit of the like the challenge.
And that's necessary.
And there's a lot of incredible breakthroughs
that happen there.
We're probably closer to the other end of the spectrum
where we love the technology and all the evolution of it,
but we were really driven by applications.
Like how can you really reinvent experiences
and functionality and build value
that wouldn't have been possible without these approaches?
And that's what drove us.
And we had a kind of some experiences
through previous jobs and internships
where we like got to see the applied side of robotics.
And at that time,
there was actually relatively few applications of robotics
that were outside of, you know,
pure research or industrial applications,
military applications and so forth.
§02Transcript · 08:25–16:39
There were very few outside of it.
So maybe, you know, iRobot was like one exception
and then maybe there were a few others,
but for the most part, there weren't that many.
And so we got excited about consumer applications
of robotics where you could leverage
way higher levels of intelligence through software
to create value and experiences that were just not possible
in those fields today.
And we saw kind of a pretty wide range of applications
that varied in the complexity of what it would take
to actually solve those.
And what we wanted to do
was to commercialize this into a company,
but actually do a bottoms up approach
where we could have a huge impact in a space
that was ripe to have an impact at that time
and then build up off of that and move into other areas.
And entertainment became the place to start
because you had relatively little innovation
in a toy space, an entertainment space.
You had these really rich experiences
in video games and movies,
but there was like this chasm in between.
And so we thought that we could
really reinvent that experience.
And there was a really fascinating transition technically
that was happening at the time
where the cost of components was plummeting
because of the mobile phone industry
and then the smartphone industry.
And so the cost of a microcontroller,
of a camera, of a motor, of memory,
of microphones, cameras was dropping by orders of magnitude.
And then on top of that, with the iPhone coming out in 2000,
I think it was 2007, I believe.
It started to become apparent within a couple of years
that this could become a really incredible interface device
and the brain with much more computation
behind a physical world experience
that wouldn't have been possible previously.
And so we really got excited about that
and how we push all the complexity
from the physical world into software
by using really inexpensive components,
but putting huge amounts of complexity into the AI side.
And so Cosmo became our second product
and then the one that we're probably most proud of.
The idea there was to create a physical character
that had enough understanding and awareness
of the physical world around it
and the context that mattered to feel like he was alive.
And to be able to have these emotional connections
and experiences with people
that you would typically only find inside of a movie.
And the motivation very much was Pixar.
We had an incredible respect and appreciation
for what they were able to build
in this really beautiful fashion and film.
But it was always, one, it was virtual,
and two, it was like a story on rails
that had no interactivity to it.
It was very fixed and it obviously had a magic to it,
but where you really start to hit a different level
of experiences when you're actually able
to physically interact with that robot.
- And then that was your idea with Anki,
like the first product was the cars.
So basically you take a toy, you add intelligence into it
in the same way you would add intelligence
into AI systems within a video game,
but you're now bringing it into the physical space.
So the idea is really brilliant,
which is you're basically bringing video games to life.
- Exactly, that's exactly right.
We literally use that exact same phrase
because in the case of "Drive,"
this was a parallel of the racing genre.
And the goal was to effectively
have a physical racing experience,
but have a virtual state at all times
that matches what's happening in the physical world.
And then you can have a video game off of that
and you can have different characters,
different traits for the cars, weapons and interactions
and special abilities and all these sorts of things
that you think of virtually,
but then you can have it physically.
And one of the things that we were really surprised by
that really stood out and immediately led us
to really accelerate the path towards Cosmo
is that things that feel like they're really constrained
and simple in the physical world,
they have an amplified impact on people
where the exact same experience virtually
would not have anywhere near the impact,
but seeing it physically really stood out.
And so effectively with "Drive,"
we were creating a video game engine for the physical world.
And then with Cosmo, we expanded that video game engine
to create a character and kind of an animation
and interaction engine on top of it
that allowed us to start to create
these much more rich experiences.
And a lot of those elements were almost like a proving ground
for what would human-robot interaction feel like
in a domain that's much more forgiving,
where you can make mistakes in a game.
It's okay if a car goes off the track
or if Cosmo makes a mistake.
And what's funny is actually,
we were so worried about that.
In reality, we realized very quickly
that those mistakes can be endearing.
And if you make a mistake,
as long as you realize you make a mistake
and have the right emotional reaction to it,
it builds even more empathy with the character.
- That's brilliant.
Exactly.
So the thing you're optimizing for is fun.
You have so much more freedom to fail, to explore.
And also in the toy space,
all of this is really brilliant.
I got to ask you, backtrack.
It seems for a roboticist to take a jump
into the direction of fun is a brilliant move.
Because one, you have the freedom to explore
and to design all those kinds of things.
And you can also build cheap robots.
If you're not chasing perfection and toys,
it's understood that you can go cheaper,
which means in robot, it's still expensive,
but it's actually affordable by a large number of people.
That's a really brilliant space to explore.
- Yeah, that's right.
And in fact, we realized pretty quickly
that perfection is actually not fun.
Because in a traditional roboticist sense,
the first path planner,
and this is the part that I worked on out of the gate,
was a lot of the AI systems where you have these vehicles
and cars racing, making optimal maneuvers
to try to get ahead.
And you realize very quickly that that's actually not fun
because you want the chaos from mistakes.
And so you start to intentionally almost add noise
to the system in order to create more of a realism
in the exact same way that a human player
might start really ineffective and inefficient
and then start to increase their quality bar
as they progress.
And there is a really, really aggressive constraint
that's forced on you by being a consumer product
where the price point matters a ton,
particularly in an entertainment
where you can't make a thousand dollar product
unless you're gonna meet the expectations
of a thousand dollar product.
And so in order to make this work,
your cost of goods had to be well under a hundred dollars.
In the case of Cosmo, we got it under $50,
end to end fully packaged and delivered.
- And it was under $200 of the cost of retail.
Okay, if we sit down at the early stages,
if we go back to that,
and you're sitting down and thinking about
what Cosmo looks like from a design perspective
and from a cost perspective,
I imagine that was part of the conversation.
First of all, what came first?
Did you have a cost in mind?
Is there a target you're trying to chase?
Did you have a vision in mind, like size?
Did you have, 'cause there's a lot of unique qualities
to Cosmo, so for people who don't know,
they should definitely check it out.
There's a display, there's eyes on the display
and those eyes can, it's pretty low resolution eyes, right?
But they still able to convey a lot of emotion.
And there's this arm, like that--
- Lift sort of--
- Lift stuff, but there's something about arm movement
that adds even more kind of depth.
It's like the face communicates emotion and sadness
and disappointment and happiness.
And then the arms kind of communicates, I'm trying here.
- Yeah.
- I'm doing my best in this complicated world.
- Exactly, so it's interesting because like,
all of Cosmo is only four degrees of freedom
and two of them are the two treads,
which is for basic movement.
And so you literally have only a head that goes up and down,
a lift that goes up and down, and then your two wheels.
And you have sound and a screen,
and a low resolution screen.
And with that, it's actually pretty incredible
what you can come up with, where, like you said,
it's a really interesting give and take
§03Transcript · 16:42–24:30
because there's a lot of ideas far beyond that, obviously,
as you can imagine, where, like you said, how big is it?
How much degrees of freedom?
What does he look like?
What does he sound like?
How does he communicate?
It's a formula that actually scales
way beyond entertainment.
This is the formula for human kind of robot interface
more generally, is you almost have this triangle
between the physical aspects of it,
the mechanics, the industrial design,
what's mass producible, the cost constraints and so forth.
You have the AI side of how do you understand
the world around you, interact intelligently with it,
execute what you want to execute,
so perceive the environment, make intelligent decisions,
and move forward.
And then you have the character side of it.
Most companies that have done anything
in human-robot interaction really miss the mark
or under-invest in the character side of it.
They over-invest in the mechanical side of it,
and then varied results on the AI side of it.
And so the thinking is that you put
more mechanical flexibility into it,
you're gonna do better.
You don't necessarily, you actually create
a much higher bar for a higher ROI
because now your price point goes up,
your expectations go up, and if the AI can't meet it
or the overall experience isn't there, you miss the mark.
- So who, like how did you, through those conversations,
get the cost down so much and make it so simple?
Like, there's a big theme here
because you come from the mecca of robotics,
which is Carnegie Mellon University, robotics.
For all the people I've interacted with
that come from there or just from the world experts
at robotics, they don't, they would never
build something like Cosmo.
And so where did that come from, the simplicity?
- It came from this combination of a team that we had.
It was quite cool because, and by the way,
you ask anybody that's experienced
in the toy entertainment space,
you'll never sell a product over $99.
That was fundamentally false,
and we believed it to be false.
It was because the experience had to kind of meet the mark.
And so we pushed past that amount,
but there was a pressure where the higher you go,
the more seasonal you become and the tougher it becomes.
And so on the cost side, we very quickly partnered up
with some previous contacts that we worked with
where, just as an example,
our head of mechanical engineering
was one of the earliest heads of engineering at Logitech
and has a billion units of consumer products
in circulation that he's worked on.
So like crazy low cost,
high volume consumer product experience.
We had a really great mechanical engineering team
and just a very practical mindset
where we were not gonna compromise on feasibility
in the market in order to chase something
that would be an enabler.
And we pushed a huge amount of expectations
onto the software team where, yes,
we're gonna use cheap, noisy motors and sensors,
but we're gonna fix it on the software side.
Then we found on the design and character side,
there was a faction that was more
from like a game design background
that thought that it should be very games-driven Cosmo,
where you create a whole bunch of games experiences
and it's all about like game mechanics.
And then there was a fashion which my co-founder
and I are the most involved in this,
like really believed in, which was character-driven.
And the argument is that you will never compete
with what you can do virtually from a game standpoint,
but you actually, on the character side,
put this into your wheelhouse
and put it more towards your advantage
because a physical character
has a massively higher impact physically than virtually.
- Okay, can I just pause on that?
'Cause this is so brilliant.
For people who don't know, Cosmo plays games with you,
but there's also a depth of character.
And I actually, when I was playing with it,
I wondered exactly what is the compelling aspect of this?
Because to me, obviously I'm biased,
but to me, the character, what I enjoyed most, honestly,
or what got me to return to it is the character.
- That's right.
- That's a fascinating discussion of, you're right.
Ultimately, you cannot compete
on the quality of the gaming experience.
- It's too restrictive.
The physical world is just too restrictive
and you don't have a graphics engine, it's like all this.
But on the character side,
and clearly we moved in that direction
as like kind of the winning path.
And we partnered up with this really,
we immediately went towards Pixar and Carlos Bena,
he was one of, had been at Pixar for nine years.
He'd worked on tons of the movies,
including "Wall-E" and others,
and just immediately kind of spoke the language
and it just clicked on how you think about that
like kind of magic and drive.
And then we built out a team with him
as like a really kind of prominent kind of driver of this
with different types of backgrounds
and animators and character developers
where we put these constraints on the team,
but then got them to really try to create magic
despite that.
And we converged on this system
that was at the overlap of character and the character AI
that were, if you imagine the dimensionality of emotions,
happy, sad, angry, surprised, confused, scared,
like you think of these extreme emotions,
we almost like kind of put this challenge
to kind of populate this library of responses
on how do you show the extreme response
that like goes to the extreme spectrum on angry
or frustrated or whatever.
And so that gave us a lot of intuition and learnings.
And then we started parameterizing them
where it wasn't just a fixed recording,
but they were parameterized and had randomness to them
where you could have infinite permutations of happy
and surprised and so forth.
And then we had a behavioral engine
that took the context from the real world
and would interpret it
and then create kind of probability mappings
on what sort of responses you would have
that actually made sense.
And so if Cosmos saw you for the first time in a day,
he'd be really surprised and happy
in the same way that the first time you walk in
and like your toddler sees you, they're so happy,
but they're not gonna be that happy
for the entirety of your next two hours.
But like you have this like spike in response,
or if you leave him alone for too long,
he gets bored and starts causing trouble
and like nudging things off the table.
Or if you beat him in a game,
the most enjoyable emotions are him getting frustrated
and grumpy to a point where our testers
and our customers would be like,
I had to let him win because I don't want him to be upset.
And so you start to like create this feedback loop
where you see how powerful those emotions are.
And just to give you an example,
something as simple as eye contact.
You don't think about it in a movie,
just like it kind of happens like,
camera angles and so forth,
but that's not really a prominent source of interaction.
What happens when a physical character like Cosmo,
when he makes eye contact with you,
it built universal kind of connection,
kids all the way through adults.
And it was truly universal.
It was not like people stopped caring
after 10, 12 years old.
And so we started doing experiments
and we found something as simple
as increasing the amount of eye contact,
like the amount of times in a minute
that he'll look over for your approval
to like kind of make eye contact,
just by I think doubling it.
We increased the play time engagement by 40%.
Like you see these sort of like kind of interactions
where you build that empathy.
And so we studied pets, we studied virtual characters.
There's like a lot of times actually dogs
are one of the perfect,
most perfect influencers behind these sort of interactions.
And what we realized is that the games
were not there to entertain you.
The games were to create context
to bring out the character.
And if you think about the types of games that you played,
they were relatively simple,
but they were always ones to create scenarios
of either tension or winning or losing or surprise
or whatever the case might be.
And they were purely there to just like create context
to where an emotion could feel intelligent and not random.
And in the end, it was all about the character.
- So yeah, there's so many elements to play with here.
§04Transcript · 24:33–32:38
So you said dogs.
What lessons do we draw from cats
who don't seem to give a damn about you?
Is that just another character?
Is it another?
- It's just another character.
And so you could almost like in the early explorations,
we thought that it would be really incredible
if you had a diversity of characters
where you almost help encourage which direction it goes,
just like in a role-playing game.
And you had, like, think of like the seven dwarves sort of.
And initially we even thought that it would be amazing
if like their characters actually help them
have strengths and weaknesses in some,
like whatever they end up doing.
Like some are scared, some are arrogant,
some are super warm and like kind of friendly.
And in the end we focused on one
because it made it very clear that,
hey, we got to build out enough depth here
because you're kind of trying to expand.
It's almost like how long can you maintain a fiction
that this character is alive
to where the person's explorations don't hit a boundary,
which happens almost immediately with typical toys.
And even with video games,
how long can we create that immersive experience
to where you expand the boundary?
And one of the things we realized
is that you're just way more forgiving
when something has a personality and it's physical.
That is the key that unlocks robotics interacting
in the physical world more generally
is that when you don't have a personality
and you make a mistake as a robot,
the stupid robot made a mistake.
Why is it not perfect?
When you have a character and you make a mistake,
you have empathy and it becomes endearing
and you're way more forgiving.
And that was the key that was like,
I think goes far, far beyond entertainment.
- It actually builds the depth of the personality,
the mistakes.
So let me ask the movie "Her" question then.
How, so "Cosmos" feels like the early days
of something that will obviously be prevalent
throughout society at a scale that we cannot even imagine.
My sense is it seems obvious
that these kinds of characters will permeate society
and we'll be friends with them.
We'll be interacting with them in different ways.
In a way we, I mean, you don't think of it this way,
but when you play video games,
they're often cold and impersonal,
but even then you think about role-playing games,
you become friends with certain characters in that game.
They don't remember much about you.
They're just telling a story.
It's exactly what you're saying.
They exist in that virtual world.
But if they acknowledge that you exist
in this physical world,
if the characters in the game remember that you exist,
that you, like for me, like Lex,
they understand that I'm a human being
who has like hopes and dreams and so on.
It seems like there's going to be like billions,
if not trillions of Cosmos in the world.
So if we look at that future,
there's several questions to ask.
How intelligent does that future Cosmo
need to be to create fulfilling relationships
like friendships?
- Yeah, it's a great question.
And part of it was the recognition
that it's going to take time to get there,
because it has to be a lot more intelligent,
because what's good enough to be a magical experience
for an eight-year-old,
it's a higher bar to do that,
be like a pet in the home,
or to help with functional interface
in an office environment or in a home or and so forth.
And so, and the idea was that you build on that
and you kind of get there.
And as technology becomes more prevalent
and less expensive and so forth,
you can start to kind of work up to it.
But you're absolutely right at the end of the day,
we almost equated it to how the touchscreen
created like this really novel interface
to physical kind of devices like this.
This is the extension of it
where you have much richer physical interaction
in the real world.
This is the enabler for it.
And it shows itself in a few kind of really obvious places.
So just take something as simple as a voice assistant.
You will never, most people will never tolerate
an Alexa or a Google Home,
just starting a conversation proactively
when you weren't kind of expecting it,
because it feels weird.
It's like you were listening and like,
and then now you're kind of, it feels intrusive.
But if you had a character,
like a cat that touches and gets your attention,
or a toddler, like you never think twice about it.
And what we found really kind of immediately
is that these types of characters like Cosmo
and they would like roam around
and kind of get your attention.
And we had a future version that was always on
kind of called Vector.
People were way more forgiving.
And so you could initiate interaction
in a way that is not acceptable for machines.
And in general, you know,
there's a lot of ways to customize it,
but it makes people who are skeptical of technology
much more comfortable with it.
There was like, there were a couple of really,
really prominent examples of this.
So when we launched in Europe,
and so we were in, I think like a dozen countries,
if I remember correctly,
but like we went pretty aggressively in launching
in Germany and France and UK.
And we were very worried in Europe
because there's obviously like a really,
a socially higher bar for privacy and security
where you've heard about how many companies
have had troubles on things that might've been okay
in the US, but like are just not okay
in Germany and France in particular.
And so we were worried about this
because you have, you know, Cosmo,
who's, you know, in a future product Vector,
like where you have cameras, you have microphones,
it's kind of connected and like you're playing with kids
and like in these experiences,
and you're like, this is like ripe to be like a nightmare
if you're not careful.
And the journalists are like notoriously
like really, really tough on these sorts of things.
We were shocked and we prepared so much
for what we would have to encounter.
We were shocked in that not once
from any journalists or customer
did we have any complaints beyond like a really casual
kind of question.
And it was because of the character
where when the conversation came up,
it was almost like, well, of course he has to see and hear
how else is he gonna be alive and interacting with you?
And it completely disarmed this like fear of technology
that enabled this interaction to be much more fluid.
And again, like entertainment was a proving ground,
but that is like, you know, there's like ingredients there
that carry over to a lot of other elements down the road.
- That's hilarious that we're a lot less concerned
about privacy if the thing is value and charisma.
I mean, that's true for all of human to human interactions.
- It's an understanding of intent where like,
well, he's looking at me, he can see me.
If he's not looking at me, he can't see me.
Right, so it's almost like you're communicating intent
and with that intent, people were like kind of
a more understanding and calmer.
And it's interesting, it was just the earliest
kind of version of starting to experiment with this,
but it wasn't an enabler.
And then you have like completely different dimensions
where like, you know, kids with autism
had like an incredible connection with Cosmo
that just went beyond anything we'd ever seen.
And we have like these just letters
that we would receive from parents.
And we had some research projects kind of going on
with some universities on studying this.
But there's an interesting dimension there
that got unlocked that just hadn't existed before
that has these really interesting kind of links
into society and a potential building block
of future experience.
- So if you look out into the future,
do you think we will have beyond a particular game,
you know, a companion like Her, like the movie Her,
or like a Cosmo that's kind of asks you
how your day went too, right?
You know, like a friend.
How many years away from that do you think we are?
What's your intuition?
- Good question.
So I think the idea of a different type of character,
like more closer to like kind of a pet style companionship,
it will come way faster.
And there's a few reasons.
§05Transcript · 32:41–40:59
One is like to do something like in Her,
that's like effectively almost general AI.
And the bar is so high that if you miss it by a bit,
you hit the uncanny valley where it just becomes creepy
and like, and not appealing.
Because the closer you try to get to a human
in form and interface and voice, the harder it becomes.
Whereas you have way more flexibility
on still landing a really great experience
if you embrace the idea of a character.
And that's why, one of the other reasons
why we didn't have a voice,
and also why like a lot of video game characters,
like Sims, for example, does not have a voice
when you think about it.
It wasn't just a cost savings like for them.
It was actually for all of these purposes,
it was because when you have a voice,
you immediately narrow down the appeal
to some particular demographic or age range
or kind of style or gender.
If you don't have a voice,
people interpret what they want to interpret.
And an eight year old might get
a very different interpretation than a 40 year old,
but you create a dynamic range.
And so you just, you can lean into these advantages
much more in something that doesn't resemble a human.
And so that'll come faster.
I don't know when a human like,
that's just still like Matt,
just complete R&D at this point.
The chat interfaces are getting way more interesting
and richer, but it's still a long way to go
to kind of pass the test of, you know.
- Well, let me, like, let's consider like,
let me play devil's advocate.
So Google is a very large company that's servicing,
it's creating a very compelling product
that wants to provide a service to a lot of people.
But let's go outside of that.
You said characters.
- Yeah.
- It feels like, and you also said that
it requires general intelligence to be a successful
participant in a relationship,
which could explain why I'm single.
This is very, but the, I honestly want to push back
on that a little bit because I feel like,
is it possible that if you're just good
at playing a character, in a movie,
there's a bunch of characters.
If you just understand what creates compelling characters,
and then you just are that character,
and you exist in the world, and other people find you,
and they connect with you, just like you do
when you talk to somebody at a bar.
I like this character, this character's kind of shady,
I don't like them.
You pick the ones that you like,
and, you know, maybe it's somebody that's,
reminds you of your father or mother,
I don't know what it is, but the Freudian thing,
but there's some kind of connection that happens,
and that's the cosmo you connect to.
That's the future cosmo you connect,
and that's, so I guess the statement I'm trying to make,
is it possible to achieve a depth of friendship
without solving general intelligence?
- I think so, and it's about intelligent
kind of constraints, right?
And just, you set expectations and constraints,
such that in the space that's left, you can be successful.
And so, you can do that by having a very focused domain
that you can operate in.
For example, you're a customer support agent
for a particular product, and you create intelligence
and a good interface around that.
Or, you know, kind of in the personal companionship side,
you can't be everything to, across the board,
you kind of solve those constraints.
And I think it's possible.
My worry is, right now, I don't see anybody
that has picked up on where kind of cosmo left off,
and is pushing on it in the same way.
And so, I don't know if it's the sort of thing
where, similar to like how, you know, in dot-com,
there were all these concepts that we considered,
like, you know, that didn't work out, or like, failed,
or like, were too early or whatnot,
and then 20 years later, you have these, like,
incredible successes on almost the same concept.
Like, it might be that sort of thing
where, like, there's another pass at it
that happens in five years or in 10 years.
But it does feel like that appreciation of that,
like, the three-legged stool, if you will,
between, like, you know, the hardware,
the AI, and the character, that balance,
it's hard to, I'm not aware of anywhere right now
where, like, that same kind of aggressive drive
with the value on the character is happening.
And so- - To me,
just a prediction, exactly as you said,
something that looks awfully a lot like cosmo,
not in the actual physical form,
but in the three-legged stool, something like that,
in some number of years, will be a trillion-dollar company.
I don't understand, like, it's obvious to me
that, like, character, not just as robotic companions,
but in all our computers, they'll be there.
It's like, Clippy was, like, two legs of that stool
or something like that.
I mean, those are all different attempts.
What's really confusing to me is they're born,
these attempts, and everybody gets excited,
and for some reason, they die,
and then nobody else tries to pick it up.
And then maybe a few years later,
a crazy guy like you comes around
with just enough brilliance and vision to create this thing
and is born, a lot of people love it.
A lot of people get excited,
but maybe the timing is not right yet.
And then when the timing is right, it just blows up.
It just keeps blowing up more and more
until it just blows up, and I guess everything
in the full span of human civilization
collapses eventually.
- And that wouldn't surprise me at all.
And, like, what's gonna be different
in another five years or 10 years or whatnot?
Physical component costs will continue
to come down in price, and mobile devices
and computation's gonna become more and more prevalent,
as well as cloud as a big tool to offload cost.
AI is gonna be a massive transformation
compared to what we dealt with,
where everything from voice understanding
to just kind of a broader contextual understanding
and mapping of semantics and understanding scenes
and so forth.
And then the character side will continue
to kind of progress as well,
'cause that magic does exist,
it just exists in different forms.
And you have just the brilliance
of the tapping and animation and these other areas
where that was a big unlock in film, obviously.
And so I think, yeah, the pieces can reconnect
and the building blocks are actually gonna be
way more impressive than they were five years ago.
- So in 2019, Anki, the company that created Cosmo,
the company that you started, had to shut down.
How did you feel at that time?
- Yeah, it was tough.
That was a really emotional stretch
and it was a really tough year.
Like about a year ahead of that
was actually a pretty brutal stretch
because we were kind of life or death on many, many moments,
just navigating these insane kind of just ups and downs
and barriers.
And the thing that made it,
just rewinding a tiny bit,
like what ended up being really challenging
about it as a business where is,
from a commercial standpoint
and customer reception standpoint,
there was a lot of things you could point to
that were like pretty big successes.
So millions of units, got to like pretty serious revenue,
like kind of close to a hundred million annual revenue,
number one kind of product in kind of various categories.
But it was pretty expensive,
ended up being very seasonal where something like 85%
of our volume was in Q4 because it was a present
and it was expensive to market it
and explain it and so forth.
And even though the volume was like really sizable
and like the reviews are really fantastic,
forecasting and planning for it
and managing the cash operations was just brutal.
Like it was absolutely brutal.
You don't think about this when you're starting a company
or when you have a few million in revenue
because it's just your biggest costs
are kind of just your head count and operations
and everything's ahead of you.
But we got to a point where,
if you look at the entire year,
you have to operate your company,
pay all the people and so forth.
You have to pay for the manufacturing,
the marketing and everything else
to do your sales in mostly November, December
and then get paid in December, January by retailers.
And those swings were really rough
and just made it like so difficult
because the more successfully became,
§06Transcript · 41:00–48:57
the more wild those swings became
because you'd have to like spend,
tens of millions of dollars on inventory,
tens of millions of dollars on marketing
and tens of millions of dollars on payroll
and everything else.
- And then the bigger dip
and then you're waiting for the key four.
- Yeah, and it's not a business that like is recurring
kind of month to month and predictable.
And it's just, and then you're walking in your forecast
in July, maybe August, if you're lucky.
And it's also like very hit driven and seasonal
where like you don't have the sort of continued
kind of slow growth like you do
in some other consumer electronics industries.
And so before then like hardware
kind of like went out of favor too.
And so you had Fitbit and GoPro drop
from 10 billion revenue to 1 billion revenue
and hardware companies are getting valued
at like 1X revenue oftentimes, which is tough, right?
And so we effectively kind of got caught in the middle
where we were trying to quickly evolve out of entertainment
and move into some other categories,
but you can't let go of that business
because like that's what you're valued on,
that's what you're raising money on.
But there was no path to kind of pure profitability
just there because it was such,
specific type of price points and so forth.
And so we tried really hard to make that transition.
And yeah, we had a financing round
that fell apart at the last second.
And effectively there was just no path
to kind of get through that
and get to the next kind of like holiday season.
And so we ended up selling some of the assets
and kind of winding down the company.
It was brutal.
Like I was very transparent with the company
like in the team while we were going through it,
where actually despite how challenging that period was,
very few people left.
I mean, like people love the vision, the team,
the culture of the like kind of chemistry
and kind of what we were doing.
There was just a huge amount of pride there.
And then we wanted to see it through.
And we felt like we had a shot
to kind of get through these checkpoints.
We ended up, and I mean by brutal,
I mean like literally like days of cash,
like three, four different times runway,
like in the year, you know, kind of before it,
where you're like playing games of chicken
on negotiating credit line timelines
and like repayment terms
and how to get like a bridge loan from an investor.
It's just like level of stress
that like as hard as things might be anywhere else,
like you'll never come close to that
where you feel that like responsibility
for 200 plus people, right?
And so we were very transparent during our fundraise
on who we're talking to, the challenges that we have,
how it's going and when things are going well,
when things were tough.
And so it wasn't a complete shock when it happened,
but it was just very emotional where like,
you know, when we announced it finally,
that like, you know, we basically were just like watching
kind of like, you know, the runway
and trying to kind of time it.
And when we realized that like,
we didn't have any more outs,
we wanted to like kind of wind it down,
make sure that it was like clean
and, you know, we could like kind of take care of people
the best we could, but they like broke down crying
at all hands and somebody else had to step in for a bit.
And like, it was just very, very emotional,
but the beautiful part is like afterwards,
like everybody stayed at the office
till like two, three in the morning,
just like drinking and hanging out
and telling stories and celebrating.
And it was just like one of the best,
for many people it was like the best kind of work experience
that they had and there was a lot of pride in what we did.
And it wasn't anything obvious we could point to that like,
hey, if only we had done that different,
things would have been completely different.
It was just like the physics didn't line up.
And, but the experience was pretty incredible,
but it was hard.
Like it was, it had this feeling
that there was just like incredible beauty
in both the technology and products and the team that,
you know, there's a lot there that like in the,
you know, right context could have been pretty incredible,
but it was emotional just.
- Yeah, just thinking, I mean,
just looking at this company, like you said,
the product and technology, but the vision,
the implementation, you got the cost down very low.
And the compelling, the nature of the product was great.
So many robotics companies failed at this,
at the robot was too expensive.
It didn't have the personality.
It didn't really provide any value,
like a sufficient value to justify the price.
So like you succeeded where basically
every single other robotics company, or most of them,
they're like go in the category of social robotics
have kind of failed.
And I mean, it's quite tragic.
I remember reading that,
I'm not sure if I talked to you before that happened or not,
but I remember, you know, I'm distant from this.
I remember being heartbroken reading that
because like if Cosmo is not gonna succeed,
what is going to succeed?
'Cause that to me was incredible.
Like it was an incredible idea.
Cost is down, it's just like the most minimal design
in physical form that you could do.
It's really compelling, the balance of games.
So it's a fun toy.
It's a great gift for all kinds of age groups, right?
It's just, it's compelling in every single way.
And it seemed like it was a huge success
and it failing was, I don't know,
there was heartbreak on many levels for me
just as an external observer is I was thinking,
how hard is it to run a business?
That's what I was thinking.
Like if this failed, this must have failed
because it's obviously not like, yeah, it's business.
Maybe it's some aspect of the manufacturing and so on,
but I'm now realizing it's also not just that,
it's sales, marketing, all those.
- It's everything, right?
Like how do you explain something
that's like a new category to people
that like have all these predispositions?
And so like, it had some of the hardest elements of,
if you were to pick a business,
it had some of the hardest customer dynamics
because like to sell a $150 product,
you got to convince both the child that wanted
and the parents to agree that it's valuable.
So you're having like this dual prong marketing challenge.
You have manufacturing,
you have like really high precision on the components
that you need, you have the AI challenges.
So there were a lot of tough elements,
but it was this feeling where like,
it was just really great alignment of unique strength
across kind of like all these different areas,
just incredible like, you know,
kind of character and animation team between this,
like Carlos and it was like a character director,
Dave that came on board and like,
really great people there, the AI side,
the manufacturing, the, you know,
where like never missing a launch, right?
And actually, you know, he kind of hit that quality.
It was, yeah, it was heartbreaking,
but here's one neat thing is like,
we had so much like fan mail from kind of kids,
parents, like I actually like,
there was a bunch that collected in the end
that I actually saved and like, I never,
it was too emotional to open it
and I still haven't opened it.
And so I actually have this giant envelope
of like a stack this much of like letters from,
you know, kids and families,
just like every, you got a permutation you can imagine.
And so planning to kind of, I don't know,
maybe like a five year, you know,
five year to some year reunion,
just inviting everybody over
and we'll just like kind of dig into it
and kind of bring back some memories,
but you know, good impact.
- And well, I think there will be companies,
maybe Waymo and Google will be somehow involved
that will carry this flag forward and will make you proud,
whether you're involved or not.
I think this is one of the greatest robotics companies
in the history of robotics.
So you should be proud.
It's still tragic to know that, you know,
'cause you read all the stories of Apple
and let's see, SpaceX and like companies
that were just on the verge of failure several times
through that story.
And they just, it's almost like a roll of the dice,
§07Transcript · 48:59–57:45
they succeeded.
And here's a roll of the dice that just happened to go.
- And that's the appreciation that like,
when you really like talk to a lot of the founders,
like everybody goes through those moments
and sometimes it really is a matter of like, you know,
timing, a little bit of luck,
like some things are just out of your control
and you get a much deeper appreciation
for just the dimensionality of that challenge.
But the great thing is, is that like a lot of the team
actually like stayed together.
And so there were actually, you know,
a couple of companies that we kind of kept big chunks
of the team together and we actually kind of helped align
this, you know, to help people out as well.
And one of them was Waymo where a majority of the AI
and robotics team actually had the exact background
that you would look for in like kind of AV space.
And it was a space that a lot of us like, you know,
worked on in grad school,
we're always passionate about and ended up,
you know, maybe the time, you know,
serendipitous timings from another perspective
where like kind of landed in a really unique circumstance
that's actually been quite exciting too.
- So it's interesting to ask you just your thoughts.
Cosmos still lives on under Dreamlabs, I think.
Is that, are you tracking the progress there
or is it too much pain?
Is that something that you're excited to see
where that goes?
- So keeping an eye on it, of course,
just out of curiosity and obviously just kind of care
for product line, I think it's deceptive how complex it is
to manufacture and evolve that product line.
And the amount of experiences that are required
to complete the picture and be able to move that forward.
And I think that's gonna make it pretty hard
to do something really substantial with it.
It would be cool if like even the product
in the way it was, was able to be manufactured.
- Yes. - Again, that would--
- Which is the current goal, I suppose.
- Yeah, which would be neat.
But I think it's deceptive how tricky that is
on like everything from the quality control, the details,
and then like technology changes that forces you to, Rick,
reinvent and update certain things.
So I haven't been super close to it,
but just kind of keeping an eye on it.
- Yeah, it's really interesting how,
it's deceptively difficult, just as you're saying.
For example, those same folks, and I've spoken with them,
they're, they partnered up with Rick and Morty creators
to do the Butter Robot.
- Yeah. - I love the idea.
I just recently, I'd kind of half-assed
watched Rick and Morty previously,
but now I just watched like the first season.
It's such a brilliant show.
I like, I did not understand how brilliant that show is.
And obviously I think in season one
is where the Butter Robot comes along
for just a few minutes or whatever.
But I just fell in love with the Butter Robot.
The sort of the, that particular character,
just like you said, there's characters,
you can create personalities, you can create,
and that particular robot who's doing a particular task
realizes, you know, this, like realizes,
ask the existential question,
the myth of Sisyphus question that Camus writes about.
It's like, is this all there is?
Is he, moves butter?
But you know, that realization,
that's a beautiful little realization for a robot
that my purpose is very limited to this particular task.
It's humor, of course, it's darkness,
it's a beautiful mix.
But so they wanna release that Butter Robot,
but something tells me
that to do the same depth of personality as Cosmo had,
the same richness, it would be on the manufacturing,
on the AI, on the storytelling, on the design,
it's going to be very, very difficult.
It could be a cool sort of toy for Rick and Morty fans,
but to create the same depth of existential angst
that the Butter Robot symbolizes is really,
that's the brave effort you've succeeded at with Cosmo,
but it's not easy, it's really difficult.
- You can fail in almost any one of the kind of dimensions
and like, and yeah, it takes, you know,
yeah, you need convergence of a lot of different skill sets
to try to pull that off, yeah.
On this topic, let me ask you for some advice,
because as I've been watching Rick and Morty,
as I told myself, I have to build the Butter Robot,
just as a hobby project.
And so I got a nice platform for it with treads
and there's a camera that moves up and down and so on.
I'll probably paint it, but the question I'd like to ask,
there's obvious technical questions I'm fine with,
communication, the personality, storytelling,
all those kinds of things.
I think I understand the process of that,
but how do you know when you got it right?
So with Cosmo, how did you know this is great?
Like, or something is off, like,
is this brainstorming with the team?
Do you know it when you see it?
Is it like love at first sight?
It's like, this is right.
Or like, I guess if we think of it as an optimization space,
is there uncanny valley where you're like,
this is not right, or this is right,
or are a lot of characters right?
- Yeah, we stayed away from uncanny valley
just by having such a different mapping
where it didn't try to look like a dog or a human
or anything like that.
And so you avoided having like a weird pseudo similarity,
but not quite hitting the mark.
But you could like just fall flat
where just like a personality or a character emotion
just didn't feel right.
And so it actually mirrored very closely
to kind of the iterations that a character director
at Pixar would have, where you're running through it
and you can virtually kind of like see what it'll look like.
We created a plugin to where,
we actually used like Maya, the simulation,
you know, the animation tools.
And then we created a plugin that perfectly matched it
to the physical one.
And so you could like test it out virtually
and then push a button and see it physically play out.
And there's like subtle differences.
And so you want to like make sure
that that feedback loop is super easy
to be able to test it live.
And then sometimes like you would just feel it
that it's right and intuitively know.
And then you'd also do, we did user testing,
but it was very, very often that like the,
like if we found it magical,
it would scale and be magical more broadly.
There were not too many cases where like,
like we were pretty decent about not like getting to it,
you know, geeking out or getting too attached
to something that was super unique to us,
but trying to kind of like, you know,
put a customer hat on and does it truly kind of feel magical?
And so in a lot of ways,
we just give a lot of autonomy to the character team
to really think about the, you know,
character board and mood boards and storyboards
and like what's the background of this character
and how would they react?
And they went through a process
that's actually pretty familiar,
but now had to operate under these unique constraints.
But the moment where it felt right
kind of took a fairly similar journey than like
as a character in an animated film, actually.
- That's quite cool.
- Well, the thing that's really important to me,
and I wonder if it's possible,
well, I hope it's possible, pretty sure it's possible,
is for me, even though I know how it works,
to make sure there's sufficient randomness in the process,
probably because it would be machine learning based,
that I'm surprised that I don't,
I'm surprised by certain reactions,
I'm surprised by certain communication.
Maybe that's in a form of a question,
were you surprised by certain things Cosmo did,
like certain interactions?
- Yeah, we made it intentionally,
so that there would be some surprise
than like a decent amount of variability
in how he'd respond in certain circumstances.
And so in the end, like it's,
this isn't generally AI,
this is a giant like spectrum and library
of like parameterized kind of emotional responses
and an emotional engine that would like kind of map
your current state of the game, your emotions, the world,
the people are playing with you all so forth
to what's happening.
But we could make it feel spontaneous
by creating enough diversity and randomness,
but still within the bounds of what felt like very realistic
to make that work.
And then what was really neat is that we could get statistics
on how much of that space we were saturating,
and then add more animations and more diversity
in the places that would get hit more often,
so that you stay ahead of the curve
and maximize the chance that it stays feeling alive.
§08Transcript · 57:49–1:06:34
And so, but then when you like combine it,
like the permutations and kind of like the combinations
of emotions stitched together,
sometimes surprised us because you see them in isolation,
but when you actually see them and you see them live,
relative to some event that happened in the game
or whatnot, like it was kind of cool
to see the combination of the two.
And not too different than other robotics applications
where like you get so used to thinking about like
the modules of a system and how things progress
through a tech stack,
that the real magic is when all the pieces come together
and you start getting the right emergent behavior
in a way that's easy to lose
when you just kind of go too deep into any one piece of it.
- Yeah, when the system is sufficiently complex,
there is something like emergent behavior
and that's where the magic is.
As a human being, you could still appreciate the beauty
of that magic at the system level.
First of all, thank you for humoring me on this.
It's really, really fascinating.
I think a lot of people would love this.
I'd love to just, one last thing on the butter robot,
I promise. (laughs)
In terms of speech,
Cosmo is able to communicate so much
with just movement and face.
Do you think speech is too much of a degree of freedom?
Like is speech a feature or a bug of deep interaction?
Or emotional interaction?
- Yeah, for a product, it's too deep right now.
It's just not real.
You would immediately break the fiction
because the state of the art is just not good enough.
And that's on top of just narrowing down the demographic
where like the way you speak to an adult
versus the way you speak to a child is very different.
Yet a dog is able to appeal to everybody.
And so right now there is no speech system
that is like rich enough and subtly realistic enough
to feel appropriate.
And so we very, very quickly kind of like
moved away from it.
Now, speech understanding is a different matter
where understanding intent, that's a really valuable input.
But giving it back requires like a way, way higher bar
given kind of where today's world is.
And so that realization that you can do surprisingly much
with either no speech or kind of tonal
like the way, you know, Wally R2-D2
and kind of other characters are able to.
It's quite powerful and it generalizes across cultures
and across ages really, really well.
I think we're gonna be in that world for a little while
where it's still very much an unsolved problem
on how to like make something.
It touches on the Uncanny Valley thing.
So if you have legs and you're a big humanoid looking thing,
you have very different expectations
and a much narrower degree of what's gonna be acceptable
by society than if you're a robot like Cosmo or Wally
and you can, or some other form where you can kind of like
reinvent the character.
Speech has that same property where speech
is so well understood in terms of expectations by humans
that you have far less flexibility on how to deviate
from that and lean into your strengths and avoid weaknesses.
- But I wonder if there is, obviously there's certain kinds
of speech that activates the Uncanny Valley
and breaks the illusion faster.
So I guess my intuition is we will solve certain,
we would be able to create some speech-based personalities
sooner than others.
So for example, I could think of a robot
that doesn't know English and is learning English, right?
Those kinds of personalities.
- A fiction where you're like, you're intentionally
kind of like getting a toddler level of speech.
So that's exactly right.
So you can't have like tie it into the experience
where it is a more limited character
or you embrace the lack of emotions as part,
or the lack of, sorry, dynamic range in the speech
kind of capabilities, emotions as like part
of the character itself.
And you've seen that in like kind of fictional characters
as well, but-
- That's why this podcast works.
- And yeah, and like, and you kind of had that with like,
I don't know, I guess like data and some of the other,
you know, what's it like. - Yeah, exactly.
- But yeah, so you have to, and that becomes a constraint
that lets you meet the bar.
- See, I honestly think like also if you add drunk
and angry, that gives you more constraints
that allow you to be a dumber from an NLP perspective.
Like there's certain aspects.
So if you modify human behavior, like,
so forget the sort of artificial thing
where you don't know English, toddler thing.
We, if you just look at the full range of humans,
I think we, there's certain situations where we put up
with like lower level of intelligence in our communication.
Like if somebody is drunk, we understand the situation,
that they're probably under the influence,
like we understand that they're not going
to be making any sense.
Anger is another one like that.
I'm sure there's a lot of other kind of situations.
- Yeah.
- So yeah, again, language, loss in translation,
that kind of stuff that I think if you play with that,
what is it, the Ukrainian boy that passed the Turing test,
you know, play with those ideas.
I think that's really interesting.
And then you can create compelling characters,
but you're right, that's a dangerous sort of road to walk
because you're adding degrees of freedom
that can get you in trouble.
- Yeah, and that's why like you have these big pushes
that like for most of the last decade plus,
like where you'd have like full like human replicas
of robots, where I'd be down to like skin
and like kind of in some places.
My personal feeling is like, man,
like that's not the direction
that's most fruitful right now.
- Beautiful art.
- Yeah.
- It's not in terms of a rich, deep, fulfilling experience.
Yeah, you're right.
- Yeah, and creating a minefield of potential places
to feel off and then you're sidestepping
where like the biggest kind of functional AI challenges
are to actually have, you know,
kind of like really rich productivity
that actually kind of justifies, you know,
kind of the higher price points.
And that's part of the challenges is like, yeah,
like robots are gonna get to like thousands of dollars,
tens of thousands of dollars and so forth,
but you can imagine what sort of expectation of value
that comes with it.
And so that's where you wanna be able to invest
the time and depth.
And so going down the full human replica route
creates a gigantic distraction
and really, really high bar that can end up
sucking up so much of your resources.
- So it's weird to say, but you happen to be
one of the greatest at this point roboticists ever
because you created this little guy,
you were part obviously of a great team
that created the little guy with a deep personality
and are now switching to an entirely,
well, maybe not entirely, but a different,
fascinating, impactful robotics problem,
which is autonomous driving and more specifically,
the biggest version of autonomous driving,
which is autonomous trucking.
So you are at Waymo now.
Can you give us a big picture overview?
What is Waymo?
What is Waymo driver?
What is Waymo One?
What is Waymo Via?
Can you give an overview of the company
and the vision behind the company?
- For sure.
Waymo, by the way, it's just,
it's been eyeopening on just how incredible
that the people and the talent is
and how in one company you almost have to create,
I don't know, 30 companies worth of like
technology and capability to like kind of
solve the full spectrum of it.
So yeah, so I've been at Waymo since 2019,
so about two and a half years.
So Waymo is focused on building what we call a driver,
which is creating the ability to have autonomous driving
across different environments, vehicle platforms,
domains and use cases.
You know, as you know, it got started in 2009.
It was a lot, almost like an immediate successor
to the Grand Challenge and Urban Challenges
that were like incredible kind of catalysts
for this whole space.
And so Google started this project
and then eventually Waymo spun out
and so what Waymo is doing is creating the systems,
both hardware, software, infrastructure,
everything that goes into it to enable
and to commercialize autonomous driving.
This hits on consumer transportation and ride sharing
and kind of vehicles and urban environments.
And as you mentioned, it hits on autonomous trucking
to transport goods.
So in a lot of ways, it's transporting people
§09Transcript · 1:06:35–1:15:01
and transporting goods, but at the end of the day,
the underlying capabilities that are required to do that
are surprisingly better aligned than one might expect,
where it's the fundamentals of being able to understand
the world around you, process it,
make intelligent decisions and prove that we are
at a level of safety that enables large-scale autonomy.
- So from a branding perspective,
sort of Waymo driver is the system
that's irrespective of a particular vehicle
it's operating in.
You have a set of sensors that perceive the world,
can act in that world and move this,
whatever the vehicle is through the world.
- That's right.
And so in the same way that you have a driver's license
and like your ability to drive isn't tied
to a particular make and model of a car.
And of course there's special licenses
for other types of vehicles,
but the fundamentals of a human driver
very, very largely carry over.
And then there's uniquenesses related
to a particular environment or domain
or a particular vehicle type
that kind of add some extra additive challenges.
But that's exactly right.
It's the underlying systems that enable a physical vehicle
without a human driver to very successfully
accomplish the tasks that previously wasn't possible
without a hundred percent human driving.
- And then there's Waymo One,
which is the transporting people from a brand perspective.
And just in case we refer to it so people know,
and then there's Waymo Via,
which is the trucking component.
Why Via, by the way?
What is that?
What is that?
Is it just like a cool sounding name that just,
like, is there an interesting story there?
Just, it is a pretty cool sounding name.
- It's a cool sounding name.
I mean, when you think about it, it's just like,
well, we're gonna transport it via this and that.
So it's just kind of like an allusion
to the mechanics of transporting something.
And it is a pretty good grouping.
And the interesting thing is that even the groupings
kind of blur where Waymo One is like human transportation
and there's a fully autonomous service in the Phoenix area
that like every day is transporting people.
And it's pretty incredible to like, just, you know,
see that operate at reasonably large scale
and just kind of happen.
And then on the Via side, it doesn't even have to be,
like long haul trucking is a, like a major focus of ours,
but down the road, you can stitch together
the vehicle transportation as well for local delivery.
Also, in a lot of this requirements for local delivery
overlap very heavily with consumer transportation.
Obviously, you know, given that you're operating
on a lot of the same roads
and navigating the same safety challenges.
And so, yeah, and Waymo very much is a, you know,
multi-product company that has ambitions in both.
They have different challenges
and both are tremendous opportunities.
But the cool thing is, is that there's a huge amount
of leverage and this kind of core technology stack
now gets pushed on by both sides.
And that adds its own unique challenges,
but the success case is that the challenges that you push on,
they get leveraged across all platforms and all domains.
- From an engineer perspective, the teams are integrated.
- It's a mix.
So there's a huge amount of centralized kind of core teams
that support all applications.
And so you think of something like the hardware team
that develops the lasers, the compute,
integrates into vehicle platforms.
This is an experience that carries over across, you know,
any application that we'd have,
and they have been full with both.
Then there's like really unique perception challenges,
planning challenges, like other types of challenges
where there's a huge amount of leverage on a core tech stack,
but then there's like dedicated teams that think of
how do you deal with a unique challenge?
For example, an articulated trailer with varying loads
that completely changes the physical dynamics of a vehicle
that doesn't exist on a car,
but it becomes one of the most important
kind of unique new challenges on a truck.
- So what's the long-term dream of Waymo
via the autonomous trucking effort that Waymo's doing?
- Yeah, so we're starting with developing
L4 autonomy for class A trucks.
These are 53 foot trailers that capture like a big,
a pretty sizable percentage of the goods transportation
in the country.
Long-term, the opportunity is obviously to expand
to much more diverse types of vehicles,
types of goods transportation,
and start to really expand in both the volume
and the route feasibility that's possible.
And so just like we did on the car side,
you start with a single route
with a very specific operating kind of domain
and constraints that allow you to solve the problem.
But then over time, you start to really try to push
against those boundaries and open up deeper feasibility
across routes, across surface streets,
across environmental conditions,
across the type of goods that you carry,
the versatility of those goods,
and how little supervision is necessary
to just start to scale this network.
And long-term, there's actually,
it's a pretty incredible enabler where,
today you have already a giant shortage of truck drivers.
It's over 80,000 truck driver shortage
that's expected to grow to hundreds of thousands
in the years ahead.
You have really, really quickly increasing demand
from e-commerce and just distribution
of where people are located.
You have one of the deepest safety challenges
of any profession in the US
where there's a huge, huge, huge kind of challenge
around fatigue and around kind of the long routes
that are driven.
And even beyond kind of the cost and necessity of it,
there are fundamental constraints built
into our logistics network that are tied
to the type of human constraints
and regulatory constraints that are tied to trucking today.
For example, our limits on how long a driver
can be driving in a single day
before they're not allowed to drive anymore,
which is a very important safety constraint.
What that does is it enforces limitations
on how far jumps with a single driver could be
and makes you very subject to availability of drivers,
which influences where warehouses are built,
which influences how goods are transported,
which influences costs.
And so you start to have an opportunity on everything
from plugging into existing fleets and brokerages
and the existing logistics network
and just immediately start to have a huge opportunity
to add value from cost and driving fuel insurance
and safety standpoint,
all the way to completely reinventing the logistics network
across the United States
and enabling something completely different
than what it looks like today.
- Yeah, I had, it'll be published before this,
had a great conversation with Steve Vigeli,
who we talked about the manual driving.
He echoed many of the same things
that you were talking about,
but we talked about much of the fascinating human stories
of truck drivers.
He was also was a truck driver for a bit as a grad student
to try to understand the depth of the problem.
He's a fascinating- - Fascinating, why it's,
we have some drivers that have 4 million miles
of lifetime driving experience.
It's pretty incredible.
And yeah, it's, you know, learning from them,
like some of them are on the road for 300 days a year.
It's a very unique type of lifestyle.
- So there's fascinating stuff there.
Just like you said, there's a shortage of actually people,
truck drivers taking the job counter to what is,
I think is publicly believed.
So there's an excess of jobs
and a shortage of people to take up those jobs.
And just like you said, it's such a difficult problem.
And these are experts at driving,
at solving this particular problem.
And it's fascinating to learn from them,
to understand, you know, how hard is this problem?
And that's the question I wanna ask you from a perception,
from a robotics perspective.
What's your sense of how difficult is autonomous trucking?
Maybe you can comment on which scenarios
are super difficult, which are more manageable.
Is there a way to kind of convert into words
how difficult the problem is?
- Yeah, it's a good question.
So there's, and as you can expect, it's a mix.
Some things become a lot easier,
or at least more flexible.
Some things are harder.
And so, you know, on the things that are like,
the tailwinds, the benefits.
A big focus of automating trucking,
especially initially, is really focusing
§10Transcript · 1:15:03–1:22:39
on the long haul freeway stretch of it,
where that's where a majority of the value is captured.
On a freeway, you have a lot more structure
and a lot more consistency across freeways across the US,
compared to surface streets,
where you have a way higher dimensionality
of what can happen, lack of structure,
lack of consistency and variability across cities.
So you can leverage that consistency to tackle,
at least in that respect, a more constrained AI problem,
which has some benefits to it.
You can itemize much more of the sort of things
you might encounter and so forth.
And so those are benefits.
- Is there a canonical freeway and city
we should be thinking about?
Like, is there a standard thing
that's brought up in conversation often?
Like, here's a stretch of road.
What is it?
Like when people talk about traveling across country,
they'll talk about New York, San Francisco.
Is that the route?
Like, is there a stretch of road that's like nice and clean?
And then there's like cities with difficulties in them
that you kind of think of as the canonical problem
to solve here.
- Right.
So starting with the car side,
Waymo very intentionally picked the Phoenix area
and the San Francisco area as a follow-up
once we hit driverless,
where when you think of consumer transportation
and ride sharing kind of economy,
a big percentage of that market is captured
in the densest cities in the United States.
And so really pushing at and solving San Francisco
becomes a really huge opportunity and importance.
And places one dot on kind of like the spectrum
of like kind of complexity.
The Phoenix area, starting with Chandler
and then like kind of expanding more broadly
in the Phoenix metropolitan area,
it's I believe the fastest growing city in the US.
It's a kind of a higher medium sized city,
but growing quickly and still captures
a really wide range of kind of like complexities.
And so getting to driverless there
actually exposes you to a lot of the building blocks
you need for the more complicated environments.
And so in a lot of ways, there's a thesis
that if you start to kind of place a few of these
kind of dots where San Francisco has these types
of unique challenges, dense pedestrians,
all this like complexity,
especially when you get into the downtown areas
and so forth, and Phoenix has like a really interesting
kind of spectrum of challenges,
maybe other ones like LA kind of add freeway focus
and so forth.
You start to kind of cover the full set of features
that you might expect, and it becomes faster and faster
if you have the right systems and the right organization
to then open up the fifth city and the 10th city
and the 20th city.
On trucking, there's similar properties
where obviously there's uniquenesses in freeways
when you get into really dense environments,
and then the real opportunity to then get even more value
is to think about how you expand
with like some of the surface challenges.
But for example, right now, we're looking,
we have a big facility that we're finishing building
in Q1 in Dallas area that'll allow us to do testing
from the Dallas area on routes like Dallas to Houston,
Dallas to Phoenix, going out East and-
- Dallas to Austin.
- Austin, so that triangle-
- Waymo should come to Austin.
- Well, Waymo, the car side was in Austin for a while.
- Yes, I know, come back.
- Yeah, but trucking is actually,
Texas is one of the best places to start
because of both volume, regulatory,
where there's a lot of benefits.
On trucking, a huge opportunity is Port of LA going East.
So in a lot of ways, a lot of the work
is to start to stitch together a network
and converge to Port of LA
where you have the biggest port in the United States.
And the amount of goods going East from there
is pretty tremendous.
And then obviously there's kind of channels everywhere,
and then you have extra complexities
as you get into like snow and inclement weather and so forth.
But what's interesting about trucking
is every single route segment that you add
increases the value of the whole network.
And so it has this kind of network effect
and cumulative effect that's very unique.
And so there's all these dimensions that we think about.
And so in a lot of ways,
Dallas has a really unique hub
that opens up a lot of options
has become a really valuable lever.
- So the million questions I could ask you,
first of all, you mentioned level four.
For people who totally don't know,
there's these levels of automation
that level four refers to kind of the first step
that you could recognize as fully autonomous driving.
Level five is really fully autonomous driving.
And level four is kind of fully autonomous driving.
And then there are specific definitions
depending on who you ask what that actually means.
But for you, what does the level four mean?
And you mentioned freeway.
Let's say like there's three parts of long haul trucking.
Maybe I'm wrong in this, but there's freeway driving,
there's like truck stop,
and then there's more urban-y type of area.
So which of those do you want to tackle?
Which of them do you include under level four?
Like, how do you think about this problem?
What do you focus on?
Where's the biggest impact to be had in the short term?
- So the goal is to,
we got to get to market as fast as we can,
because the moment you get to market,
you just learn so much
and it influences everything that you do.
And it is,
I mean, it's one of the experiences
I carried over from before,
is that you add constraints,
you figure out the right compromises,
you do whatever it takes,
because getting to market is so critical.
- But here, with autonomous driving,
you can get to market in so many different ways.
- That's right.
And so one of the simplifications
that we intentionally have put on
is using what we call transfer hubs,
where you can imagine depots
that are at the entry points to metropolitan areas,
like let's say Dallas,
like the hub that we're building,
which does a few things that are very valuable.
So from a first product standpoint,
you can automate transfer hub to transfer hub,
and that path from the transfer hub
to the full freeway route
can be a very intentional single route
that you can select for the features
that you feel you wanna handle at that point in time.
- Now you build a hub specifically designed
for autonomous trucking.
- And that's what's gonna happen actually,
like you need to come out in January and check it out,
'cause it's gonna be really cool.
It's not only is it our main operating headquarters
for our fleet there,
but it will be the first fully ground up
designed driverless hub for autonomous trucks
in terms of where do they enter, where do they depart?
How do you think about the flow of people, goods, everything?
It's quite cool,
and it's really beautiful on how it's thought through.
And so early on,
it is totally reasonable to do the last five miles manually
to get to the final kind of depot
to avoid having to solve the general surface street problem,
which is obviously very complex.
Now, when the time comes,
and we are increasingly,
well, already we're pushing on some of this,
but we will increasingly be pushing
on surface street capabilities
to build out the value chain
to go all the way depot to depot
instead of transfer hub to transfer hub.
And we have probably the best advantages in the world
because of all the Waymo experience on surface streets,
but that's not the highest ROI right now
where the highest ROI is--
- Hub to hub.
- Hub to hub and get the routes going.
And so when you ask what's L4,
L4 can be applied to any domain, operating domain or scope,
but it's effectively for the places where we say
we're ready for autonomous operation.
We are 100% operating through as a self-driving truck
with no human behind the wheel.
That is L4 autonomy.
And it doesn't mean that you operate in every condition.
It doesn't mean you operate on every road,
but for a particularly well-defined area,
operating conditions, routes, kind of domain,
you are fully autonomous.
§11Transcript · 1:22:40–1:30:36
And that's the difference between L4 and L5.
And most people would agree that
at least anytime in the foreseeable future,
L5 is just not even really worth thinking about
because there's always gonna be these extremes.
And so it's a race and almost like a game
where you think of what is the sequence
of expanded capabilities that create the most value
and teach us the most and create this feedback loop
where we're building out and unlocking
more and more capability over time.
- I gotta ask you, just curious.
So first of all, I have to, when I'm allowed,
visit the Dallas facility 'cause it's super cool.
It's like robot on the giving and the receiving end.
It's the truck is a robot and the hub is a robot.
- Yeah, it's gotta be very robot friendly.
- Yeah, that's great.
I will feel at home.
What's the sensor suite like on the hub
if you can just high level mention it?
Is, does the hub have like lidars and like,
is the truck doing most of the intelligence
or is the hub also intelligent?
- Yeah, so most of it will be the truck
and everything is like connected.
Like, so we have our servers where we know exactly
where every truck is.
We know exactly what's happening at a hub.
And so you can imagine like a large backend system
that over time starts to manage timings, goods,
delivery windows, all these sorts of things.
And so you don't actually need to,
there might be special cases where that is valuable
to equip some sensors in the hub,
but a majority of the intelligence is gonna be on the truck
because whatever's relevant to the truck,
relevant should be seen by the truck
and can be relayed remotely for any sort of
kind of cognizance or decision-making.
But there's a distinct type of workflow where,
where do you check trucks?
Where do you want them to enter?
What if there's many operating at once?
Where's the staging area to depart?
How do you set up the flow of humans
and human cars and traffic
so that you minimize the interaction between humans
and kind of self-driving trucks?
And then how do you even intelligently select
the locations of these transfer hubs
that are both really great service locations
for a metropolitan area?
And there could be over time,
many of them for a metropolitan area,
while at the same time,
leaning into the path of least resistance
to lean into your current capabilities and strengths
so that you minimize the amount of work that's necessary
to unlock the next kind of big bar.
- I have a million questions.
So first, is the goal to have no human in the truck?
- The goal is to have no human in the truck.
Now, of course, right now we're testing
with expert operators and so forth,
but the goal is to...
Now, there might be circumstances
where it makes sense to have a human
and obviously these trucks can also be manually driven.
So sometimes like we talk with our fleet partners
about how you can buy Waymo equipped
Dymor truck down the road
and on the routes that are autonomous, it's autonomous.
On the routes that are not, it's human driven.
Maybe there's L2 functionality
that add safety systems and so forth.
But as soon as they become,
as soon as we expand in software,
the availability of driverless routes,
the hardware is forward compatible
to just now start using them in real time.
And so you can imagine this mixed use,
but at the end of the day,
the largest value proposition is where you're able
to have no constraints on how you can operate this truck.
And it's 100% autonomous with nobody inside.
- That's amazing.
So let me ask on a logistics front,
'cause you mentioned that also opportunity to revamp
or for built from scratch,
some of the ideas around logistics.
I don't wanna throw too much shade,
but from talking to Steve,
my understanding is logistics is not perhaps as great
as it could be in the current trucking environment.
I'm not, maybe you can break down why,
but there's probably competing companies.
There's just a mess.
Maybe some of it is literally just it's old school.
Like it's just like, it's not computerized.
Like truckers are almost like contractors.
There's an independence and there's not a nice interface
where they can communicate where they're going,
where they're at, all those kinds of things.
And so it just feels like there's so much opportunity
to digitize everything to where you could optimize
the use of human time,
optimize the use of all kinds of resources.
How much are you thinking about that problem?
How fascinating is that problem?
How difficult does it,
how much opportunity is there to revolutionize
the space of logistics in autonomous trucking,
in trucking period?
- It's pretty fascinating.
It's, this is one of the most motivating aspects
of all this where like, yes,
there's like a mountain of problems that are like,
you want to, you have to solve to get to like
the first checkpoints and first driverless and so forth.
And inevitably like in a space like this,
you plug in initially into the existing kind of system
and start to kind of learn and iterate.
But that opportunity is massive.
And so a couple of the factors that play into it.
So first of all,
there's obviously just the physical constraints
of driving time, driver availability.
Some fleets have a 95% attrition rate,
you know, right now because of just this demands
and like, you know,
kind of gaps in competition and so forth.
And then it's also incredibly fragmented
where you would be shocked at like,
when you look at industries,
like, and you think of the top 10 players,
like the biggest fleets,
like the Walmarts and FedEx's and so forth,
the percentage of the overall trucking market
that's captured by the top 10 or 50 fleets
is surprisingly small.
The average kind of truck operation
is like a one to five truck, you know, family business.
And so there's just like a huge amount of like fragmentation,
which makes for really interesting challenges
in kind of stitching together through like bulletin boards
and brokerages and some people run their own fleets.
And this world's kind of like evolving,
but it is one of the less digitized and optimized worlds
that there is.
And the part that is optimized
is optimized to the constraints of today.
And even within the constraints of today,
this is a $900 billion industry in the US
and it's continuing to grow.
- It feels like from a business perspective,
if I were to predict that whilst trying to solve
the autonomous trucking problem,
Waymo might solve first the logistics problem.
Like, 'cause that would already be a huge impact.
So on the way to solving autonomous trucking,
the human driven, like there's so much opportunity
to significantly improve the human driven trucking,
the timing, the logistics.
So you use humans optimally.
- The handoffs, the like, you know.
Well, even the, I mean, you get really ambitious,
you start to expand this beyond like,
how does the fulfillment center work?
And like, how does the transfer hub work?
How does the warehouse work to,
I mean, there's a lot of opportunities
to start to automate these chains.
And a lot of the inefficiency today is because like,
you have a delay, like Port of LA has a bunch of ships
right now waiting outside of it because they can't dock
because there's not enough labor inside of the Port of LA.
That means there's a big backlog of trucks,
which means there's a big backlog of deliveries,
which means the drivers aren't where they need to be.
And so you have this like huge chain reaction
and your feasibility of readjusting in this network is low
because everything's tied to humans
and manual kind of processes or distributed processes
across a whole bunch of players.
And so one of the biggest enablers is,
yes, we have to solve autonomous trucking first.
And that, by the way, that's not like an overnight thing.
That's decades of continued kind of expansion and work.
But the first checkpoint in the first route is like,
is not that far off.
But once you start enabling and you start to learn
about how the constraints of autonomous trucking,
which are very, very different
than the constraints of human trucking,
and again, strengths and weaknesses,
how do you then start to leverage that
and rethink a flow of goods more broadly?
And this is where like the learnings
of like really partnering
§12Transcript · 1:30:37–1:38:00
with some of the largest fleets in the US
and the sort of learnings that they have about the industry
and the sort of needs that they have
and what would change if you just like
really broke this one constraint
that like holds up the whole network?
Or what if you enabled this other constraint?
That actually drives the roadmap in a lot of ways
because this is not like an all or nothing problem.
It's, you know, you start to kind of unlock
more and more functionality over time,
which functionality most enables this optimization
ends up being kind of part of the discussion.
But you're totally right.
Like you fast forward to like, you know,
five years, 10 years, 15 years,
and you think about like very generalized capability
of automation and logistics,
as well as the ability to like poke
into how those handoffs work.
The efficiency goes far beyond just direct cost
of today's like unit economics of a truck.
They go towards reinventing the entire system
in the same way that, you know,
you see, you know, these other industries that,
like when you get to enough scale,
you can really rethink how you build
around your new set of capabilities,
not the old set of capabilities.
- Yeah, use the analogy metaphor or whatever
that autonomous trucking is like email versus mail.
And then with email, you're still doing the communication,
but it opens up all kinds of,
varieties of communication that you didn't anticipate.
- That's right, constraints are just completely different.
And yeah, there's definitely a property of that here.
And we're also still learning about it
because there is a lot of really fascinating
and sometimes really elegant things
that the industry has done where there's companies
whose entire existence is around,
despite the constraints,
optimizing as much as they can out of it.
And those lessons do carry over,
but it's an interesting kind of merger of worlds
to think about like, well, what if
this was completely different?
How would we approach it?
And the interesting thing is that
for a really, really, really long time,
it's actually gonna be the merger
between how to use autonomy and how to use humans
that leans into each of their strengths.
- Yeah, and then we're back to Cosmo,
human robot interaction.
So, and the interesting thing about Waymo
is because there's the passenger vehicle,
the human, the transportation of humans
and transportation of goods,
you could see over time,
they may kind of meld together more
because you'll probably have like
zero occupancy vehicles moving around.
So you have transportation of goods for short distances
and then for slightly longer distances
and then slightly longer,
and then there'll be this,
then you just see the difference
between a passenger vehicle and a truck is just size
and you can have different sizes
and all that kind of stuff.
And at the core, you can have a Waymo driver
that doesn't, as long as you have the same sense of suite,
you can just think of it as one problem.
- And that's why over time,
these do kind of converge where in a lot of ways,
a lot of the challenges we're solving are freeway driving,
which are going to carry over very well
to the vehicles, to the car side.
But there are like then unique challenges,
like you have a very different dynamics in your vehicle
where you have to see much further out
in order to have the proper like response time
because you have an 80,000 pound fully loaded truck.
That's a very, very different type of braking profile
than a car.
You have a really interesting kind of dynamic limits
because of the trailer where you actually,
it's very, very hard to like physically like flip a car
or do something like physically,
like most risk in a car is from just collisions.
It's very hard to like in any normal operation
to do something other than like,
unless you hit something to actually kind of like
roll over something.
On a truck, you actually have to drive much closer
to the physical bounds of the safety limits,
but you actually have like real constraints
because you could have a really interesting interactions
between the cabin and the trailer.
There's something called jackknifing.
If you turn too quickly, you have roll risks and so forth.
And so we spent a huge amount of time
understanding those boundaries
and those boundaries change based on the load that you have,
which is also an interesting difference.
And you have to propagate through that,
through the algorithm
so that you're leveraging your dynamic range,
but always staying within a safety balance,
but understanding what those safety bounds are.
And so we have this like really cool test facility
where we like take it to the max and actually,
imagine a truck with these giant training wheels
on the back of the trailer
and you're pushing it past the safety limits
in order to like try to actually see where it rolls.
And so you define this high dimensional boundary,
which then gets captured in software to stay safe
and actually do the right thing.
But it's kind of fascinating,
the sort of kind of challenges you have there.
But then all of these things
drive really interesting challenges from perception
to unique behavior prediction challenges.
And obviously in Planner where you have to think about
merging and creating gaps with a 53 foot trailer
and so forth.
And then obviously the platform itself is very different.
We have different numbers of sensors,
sometimes types of sensors,
and you also have unique blind spots that you have
because of the trailer, which you have to think about.
And so it's a really interesting spectrum.
And in the end,
you try to capture these special cases in a way
that is cleanly augmentations of the existing tech stack,
because a majority of what we're solving
is actually generalizable to freeway driving
and different platforms.
And over time, they all start to kind of merge ideally
where the things that are unique
are as minimal as possible.
And that's where you get the most leverage.
And that's why Waymo can do,
take on $2 trillion opportunities
and have been nowhere near 2X the cost or investment or size.
In fact, it's much, much smaller than that
because of the high degree of leverage.
- So what kind of sensor suite they can speak to
that a long haul truck needs to have?
LiDAR, vision, how many, what are we talking about here?
- Yeah, so it's more than the car.
So very loose, you can think of as like 2X,
but it varies depending on the sensor.
And so we have like dozens of cameras, radar,
and then multiple LiDAR as well.
You'll see one difference where the cars
have a central main sensor pod on the roof in the middle,
and then some kind of hood sensors for blind spots.
The truck moves to two main sensor pods on the outsides
where you would typically have the mirrors
next to the driver.
They effectively go as far out as possible,
kind of up to the- - Up front.
- Kind of on the cabin, not all the way in the front,
but like kind of where the mirrors for the driver would be.
And so those are the main sensor pods.
And the reason they're there
is because if you had one in the middle,
the trailer's higher than the cabin
and you would be occluded with this like awkward wedge.
- Too much occlusion. - Too much occlusion.
And so then you would add a lot of complexity
to the software to make up for that
and just unnecessary complexity.
- There's so many probably fascinating design choices.
- Really cool.
- 'Cause you can probably bring up a LiDAR higher
and have it in the center or something.
You could have all kinds of choices
to make the decisions here
that ultimately probably will define the industry.
- Right, but by having two on the side,
there's actually multiple benefits.
So one is like you're just beyond the trailer,
so you can see fully flush with the trailer.
And so you eliminate most of your blind spot
except for right behind the trailer,
which is great because now the software
carries over really well.
And the same perception system you use on the car side,
largely that architecture can carry over
and you can retrain some models and so forth,
but you leverage it a lot.
It also actually helps with redundancy
where there's a really nice built-in redundancy
for all the LiDAR cameras and radar
where you can afford to have any one of them fail
and you're still okay.
§13Transcript · 1:38:01–1:45:51
And at scale, every one of them will fail.
And you will be able to detect when one of them fails
because they don't, because the redundancy,
they're giving you the data that's inconsistent
with the rest of the-
- That's right.
And it's not just like they no longer give data.
It could be like they're fouled
or they stop giving data
where some electrical thing gets cut
or part of your compute goes down.
So what's neat is that like you have way more sensors,
part of his field of view and occlusions,
part of it's redundancy,
and then part of it is new use cases.
So there's new types of sensors
to optimize for long range
and kind of the sensing horizon
that we look for on our vehicles
that is unique to trucks
because it actually is like kind of much
like further out than a car.
But a majority are actually used
across both cars and trucks.
And so we use the same compute,
the same fundamental baseline sensors,
cameras, radar, IMUs.
And so you get a great leverage
from all of the infrastructure
and the hardware development as a result.
- So what about cameras?
What role does,
so LIDAR is this rich set of information
that has its strengths,
has some weaknesses.
Camera is this rich source of information
that has some strengths,
has its weaknesses.
What role does LIDAR play?
What role does vision cameras play
in this beautiful problem of autonomous trucking?
- It is beautiful.
There's like so much that comes together.
- And how much,
at which point do they come together?
- Yeah.
So I'll start with LIDAR.
So LIDAR has been like way most,
one of way most big strengths and advantages
where we developed our own LIDAR in-house
where many generations in,
both in cost and functionality,
it is the best in the space.
- Which generation?
'Cause I know there's this cool,
I love versions that are increasing.
Which version of the hardware stack is it currently?
Officially, publicly?
- So some parts iterate more than others.
I'm trying to remember on the sensor side.
So the entire self-driving system,
which includes sensors and compute is fifth generation.
- I can't wait until there's like iPhone style
like announcements for like new versions
of the Waymo hardware stack.
- Well, we try to be careful
'cause man, when you change the hardware,
it takes a lot to like retrain the models and everything.
So we just went through that
and going from the Pacificus to the Jaguars.
And so the Jaguars and the trucks
have the same generation now.
But yeah, the LiDAR is, it's incredible.
And so Waymo has leaned into that as a strength.
And so a lot of the near range perception system
that obviously kind of carries over a lot from the car side
uses LiDAR as a very prominent kind of like primary sensor,
but then obviously everything has its strengths
and weaknesses.
And so in the near range, LiDAR is a gigantic advantage
and it has its weaknesses on,
when it comes to occlusions in certain areas,
rain and weather, like things like that.
But it's an incredible sensor
and it gives you incredible density,
perfect location, precision and consistency,
which is a very valuable property
to be able to kind of apply ML approach.
- Can you elaborate consistency?
- Yeah, when you have a camera,
the position of the sun, the time of the day,
various of the properties can have a big impact,
whether there's glare, the field of view, things like that.
- So consistent.
- The signal.
- With in the face of a changing external environment,
the signal.
- Yeah, daytime, nighttime,
it's about 3D physical existence.
In effect, like you're seeing beams of light
that physically bounce off of something and come back.
And so whatever the conditional conditions are,
like the shape of a human sensor reading from a human
or from a car or from an animal,
like you have a reliability there,
which ends up being valuable
for kind of like the long tail of challenges.
Now, LiDAR is the first sensor to drop off
in terms of range and ours has a really good range,
but at the end of the day, it drops off.
And so particularly for trucks,
on top of the general redundancy that you want
for near range and complements through cameras and radar
for occlusions and for complimentary information
and so forth, when you get the long range,
you have to be radar and camera primary
because your LiDAR data will fundamentally drop off
after a period of time,
and you have to be able to see kind of objects further out.
Now, cameras have the incredible range
where you get a high density, high resolution camera,
you can get data well past a kilometer
and it's like really potentially a huge value.
Now, the signal drops off, the noise is higher,
detecting is harder, classifying is harder.
And one that you may not think about localizing is harder
because you can be off by like two meters
and where something's located a kilometer away.
And that's the difference between being on the shoulder
and being in your lane.
And so you have like interesting challenges there
that you have to solve,
which have a bunch of approaches that come into it.
Radar is interesting because it also has longer range
than LiDAR and it gives you speed information.
So it becomes very, very useful for dynamic information
of traffic flow, vehicle motions, animals, pedestrians,
like just things that might be useful signals.
And it helps with weather conditions
where radar actually penetrates weather conditions
in a better way than other sensors.
And so it's just, it's kind of interesting
where we've kind of started to converge
towards not thinking about a problem as a LiDAR problem
or a camera problem or radar problem,
but it's a fusion problem where these are all
like large scale ML problems
where you put data into the system.
And in many cases, you just look for the signals
that might be present in the union of all of these
and leave it to the system as much as possible
to start to really identify how to extract that.
And then there's places we have to intervene
and actually include more,
but no single sensor is in a great position
to like really solve this problem
and end without a huge extra challenge.
- That's fascinating.
There's a question that's probably still an open question
is at which point do you fuse them?
Do you solve the perception problem
for each sensor suite individually,
the LiDAR suite and the camera suite,
or do you do some kind of heterogeneous fusion
or do you fuse at the very beginning?
Is there a good answer
or at least an inkling of intuitions you can come up with?
- Yeah, so people refer to this
as like early fusion or late fusion.
So late fusion might be that you have like
the camera pipeline, the LiDAR pipeline,
and then you like fuse them.
And like when it gets to like final semantics
and classification and tracking,
you like kind of fuse them together
and figure out which one's best.
There's more and more evidence
that early fusion is important.
And that is because late fusion does not allow you
to pick up on the complementary strengths
and weaknesses of the sensors.
Weather's a great example where if you do early fusion,
you have an incredibly hard problem
for any single sensor in rain to solve that problem
because you have reflections from the LiDAR,
you have weird kind of noise from the camera,
blah, blah, blah, right?
But the combination of all of them can help you filter
and help you get to the real signal
that then gets you as close as possible
to the original stack.
And be much more fluid about the strengths and weaknesses
where your camera is much more susceptible
to like kind of fouling on the actual lens
from like rain or random stuff.
Whereas like you might be a little bit more resilient
in other sensors.
And so there's an element of logic
that always happens late in the game,
but that fusion early on, actually,
§14Transcript · 1:45:54–1:53:34
especially as you move towards ML
and large-scale data-driven approaches,
just maximizes your ability to pull out the best signal
you can out of each modality
before you start making constraining decisions
that end up being hard to unwind late in the stack.
- So how much of this is a machine learning problem?
What role does ML, machine learning,
play in this whole problem of autonomous driving,
autonomous trucking?
- It's massive and it's increasing over time.
If you go back to the grand challenge days
in the early days of kind of AV development,
there was ML, but it was not in like
kind of the mass scale data style of ML.
It was like learning models,
but in a more structured kind of way.
And it was a lot of heuristic
and search-based approaches and planning and so forth.
You can make a lot of progress
with these types of approaches kind of across the board,
an almost deceptive amount of progress.
We can get pretty far,
but then you start to really grind
the further you get in some parts of the stack
if you don't have an ability
to absorb a massive amount of experience
in a way that scales very sub-linearly
in terms of human labor and human attention.
And so when you look at the stack,
the perception side is probably the first
to get really revolutionized by ML.
And it goes back many years
because ML for like computer vision
and these types of approaches
kind of took off was a lot of the like early
kind of push in deep learning.
And so there's always a debate on, you know,
the spectrum between kind of like end to end ML,
which, you know, is a little bit kind of like too far
to how you architect it to where you have modules,
but enough ability to think about long tail problems
and so forth.
But at the end of the day,
you have big parts of the system
that are very ML and data driven.
And we're increasingly moving that direction
all the way across the board,
including behavior where even when it's not like
a gigantic ML problem that covers like a giant swath
end to end, more and more parts of the system
have this property where you want to be able
to put more data into it and it gets better.
And that has been one of the realizations
as you drive tens of millions of miles
and try to like solve new expansions of domains
without regressing in your old ones,
it becomes intractable for a human to approach that
in the way that traditionally robotics
has kind of approached some elements of the tech stack.
- So are you trying to create a data pipeline
specifically for the trucking problem?
This is it, like how much leveraging
of the autonomous driving is there
in terms of data collection?
- Yeah.
- And how unique is the data required
for the trucking problem?
- So we use all the same infrastructure.
So labeling workflows, ML workflows, everything.
So that actually carries over quite well.
We heavily reuse the data even,
where almost every model that we have on a truck,
we started with the latest car model.
- Cool.
- And-
- So it's almost like a good back car model.
- Yeah, it's like you can think of like,
despite the different domain and different numbers
of sensors and position of sensors,
there's a lot of signals that carry over across driving.
And so it's almost like pre-training
and getting a big boost out of the gate
where you can reduce the amount of data you need by a lot.
And it goes both ways actually.
And so we're increasingly thinking about our data
strategy on how we leverage both of these.
So you think about, you know,
how other agents react to a truck.
Yeah, it's a little bit different,
but the fundamentals are actually like,
what will other vehicles in the road do?
There's a lot of carry over that's possible.
And in fact, just to give you an example,
we're constantly kind of like adding more data
from the trucking side.
But as of right now, when we think of our,
like one of our models, behavior prediction
for other agents on the road, like vehicles.
85% of that data comes from cars.
And a lot of that 85% comes from surface streets
because we just had so much of it and it was really valuable.
And so we're adding in more and more,
particularly in the areas where we need more data,
but you get a huge boost out of the gate.
- Just all different visual characteristics of roads,
lane markings, pedestrians, all that, that's still relevant.
- It's all still relevant.
And then just the fundamentals of how, you know,
you detect the car, does it really change that much?
Whether you're detecting it from a car or a truck,
the fundamentals of how a person will walk
around your vehicle is it, it'll change a little bit,
but the basics, like there's a lot of signal in there
that as a starting point to a network
can actually be very valuable.
Now we do have some very unique challenges
where there's a sparsity of events on a freeway.
The frequency of events happening on a freeway,
whether it's, you know, interesting, you know,
objects in the road or incidents,
or even like from a human benchmark,
like how often does a human have a accident
on a freeway is far more sparse than on a surface street.
And so that leads to really interesting data problems
where you can't just drive infinitely
to encounter all the different permutations
of things you might encounter.
And so there you get into interesting tools
like structure testing and data collection,
data augmentation, and so forth.
And so there's really interesting kind of technical
challenges that push some of the research
that enables these new suites of approaches.
- What role does simulation play?
- Really good question.
So Waymo simulates about a thousand miles
for every mile it drives.
So you think of--
- In both, so across the board.
- Across the board, yeah.
So you think of, for example,
well, if we've driven, you know, over 20 million miles,
that's over 20 billion miles in simulation.
Now, how do you use simulation?
It's a multi-purpose.
So you use it for basic development.
So you want to do, make sure you have regression prevention
and protection of everything you're doing, right?
That's an easy one.
When you encounter something interesting in the world,
let's say there was an issue with how the vehicle behaved
versus an ideal human.
You can play that back in simulation
and start augmenting your system
and seeing how you would have reacted to that scenario
with this improvement or this new area.
You can create scenarios that become part
of your regression set after that point, right?
Then you start getting into like really, really
like kind of hill climbing where you say,
"Hey, I need to improve this system.
I have these metrics that are really correlated
with final performance.
How do I know how well I'm doing?"
The actual physical driving
is the least efficient form of testing.
And it's expensive, it's time consuming.
So grabbing a large scale batch of historical data
and simulating it to get a signal of over these last,
or just random sample of a hundred thousand miles,
how has this metric changed versus where we are today?
You can do that far more efficiently in simulation
than just driving with that new system on board, right?
And then you go all the way to the validation phase
where to actually see your human relative safety
of like how well you're performing on the car side
or the trucking side relative to a human.
A lot of that safety case is actually driven
by taking all of the physical operational driving,
which probably includes a lot of interventions
where the driver took over just in case.
And then you simulate those forward
and see if would anything have happened?
And in most cases, the answer is no,
but you can simulate it forward.
And you can even start to do really interesting things
where you add virtual agents to create harder environments.
You can fuzz the locations of physical agents.
You can muck with the scene and stress test the scenario
from a whole bunch of different dimensions.
And effectively you're trying to like more efficiently
sample this like infinite dimensional space,
but try to encounter the problems as fast as possible.
Because what most people don't realize
is the hardest problem in autonomous driving
is actually the evaluation problem in many ways,
not the actual autonomy problem.
And so if you could in theory evaluate perfectly
and instantaneously, you can solve that problem
§15Transcript · 1:53:37–2:01:36
in a really fast feedback loop quite well.
But the hardest part is being really smart
about this suite of approaches
on how can you get an accurate signal
on how well you're doing as quickly as possible
in a way that correlates to physical driving.
- Can you explain the evaluation problem?
Which metric are you evaluating towards?
Are we talking about safety?
What are the performance metrics that we're talking about?
- So in the end you care about end safety.
Like that's in the end what keeps you,
like that's what's deceptive where there's a lot of companies
that have like a great demo.
The path from like a really great demo
to being able to go driverless can be deceptively long,
even when that demo looks like it's driverless quality.
And the difference is that the thing that keeps you
from going driverless is not the stuff you encounter
in a demo, it's the stuff that you encounter
once in a hundred thousand miles or 500,000 miles.
And so that is at the root of what is most challenging
about going driverless because any issue you encounter
you can go and fix it, but how do you know
you didn't create five other issues
that you haven't encountered yet?
So those learnings, like those were painful learnings
in Waymo's history that Waymo went through
and led to us then finally being able to go driverless
in Phoenix and now are at the heart of how we develop.
Evaluation is simultaneously evaluating final kind
of end safety of how ready are you to go driverless,
which may be as direct as what is your collision,
human relative kind of collision rate
for all these types of scenarios and severities
to make sure that you're better than a human bar
by a good amount.
But that's not actually the most useful for development.
For development, it's much more kind of analog metrics
that are part of the art of finding how,
what are the properties of driving
that give you a way quicker signal
that's more sensitive than a collision
that can correlate to the quality you care about
and push the feedback loop to all of your development.
A lot of these are, for example,
comparisons to human drivers, like manual drivers.
How do you do relative to a human driver
in various dimensions or various circumstances?
- Can I ask you a tricky question?
So if I brought you a truck, how would you test it?
Okay, Alan Turing came along and you said-
- This one's, can't tell if it's a human driver
or autonomous driver. - Yeah, exactly.
But not the human because humans are flawed.
- It's different, but yeah.
How do you actually know you're ready, basically?
Like, how do you know it's good enough?
Yeah, and by the way, this is the reason why
Waymo released a safety framework for the car side
because one, it sets the bar so nobody cuts below it,
and does something bad for the field
that causes an accident.
Two, it's to start the conversation on framing
what does this need to look like?
Same thing we'll end up doing for the trucking side.
It ends up being different portfolio of approaches.
There's easy things like, are you compliant
with all these fundamental rules of the road?
Like, you never drive above the speed limit.
That's actually pretty easy.
You can fundamentally prove that it's either impossible
to violate that rule or that in these,
you can itemize the scenarios where that comes up
and you can do a test and show that you passed that test
and therefore you can handle that scenario.
And so those are like traditional structure testing
kind of system engineering approaches
where you can just, like fault rates is another example
where when something fails, how do you deal with it?
You're not gonna drive and randomly wait for it to fail.
You're gonna force a failure and make sure
that you can handle it in close courses
and simulation or on the road.
And run through all the permutations of failures
which you can oftentimes for some parts of system itemize
like hardware.
The hardest part is behavioral
where you have just infinite situations
that could in theory happen.
And you wanna figure out the combinations of approaches
that can work there.
You can probably pass the Turing test pretty quickly
even if you're not like completely ready for driverless
because the events that are really kind of like hard
will not happen that often.
Just to give you a perspective,
a human has a serious accident on a freeway
like a truck driver on a freeway has,
there's a serious event happens once every 1.3 million miles
and something that actually has like
a really serious injuries, 28 million miles.
And so those are really rare.
And so you could have a driver that looks like
it's ready to go, but you have no signal
on what happens there.
And so that's where you start to get creative
on combinations of sampling and statistical arguments,
focused structured arguments where you can kind of
simulate those scenarios and show that you can handle them
and metrics that are correlated with what you care about
but you can measure much more quickly
and get to a right answer.
And that's what makes it pretty hard.
And in the end, you end up borrowing a lot of properties
from aerospace and like space shuttles and so forth
where you don't get the chance to launch it a million times
just to say you're ready
because it's too expensive to fail.
And so you go through a huge amount
of kind of structured approaches in order to validate it.
And then by thoroughness, you can make a strong argument
that you're ready to go.
This is actually a harder problem in a lot of ways though
because you can think of a space shuttle
as getting to a fixed point and then you kind of like
or an airplane and you like freeze the software
and then you like prove it and you're good to go.
Here you have to get to a driverless quality bar
but then continue to aggressively change the software
even while you're driverless.
And so-
- But in also the full range of environment
that there's an external environment with a shuttle
is you're basically testing the like the systems,
the internal stuff.
- Yeah.
- And you have a lot of control in the external stuff.
- Yeah, and the hard part is how do you know
you didn't get worse in something that you just changed?
- Yes, sure.
- And so in a lot of ways
like the Turing test starts to fail pretty quickly
because you start to feel driverless quality
pretty early in that curve.
If you think about it, right?
Like in most kind of really good AV demos
maybe you'll sit there for 30 minutes, right?
- Yeah.
- So you've driven 15 miles or something like that.
To go driverless, like what's the sort of rate of issues
that you need to have you won't even encounter?
- So let's try something different then.
Let's try a different version of the Turing test
which is like an IQ test.
So there's these difficult questions
of increasing difficulty.
They're designed, you don't know them ahead of time.
Nobody knows the answer to them.
- Right.
- And so is it possible to in the future orchestrate
basically really difficult--
- Obstacle course almost of like--
- Yeah, that maybe change every year
and that represent, if you can pass these,
they don't necessarily represent the full spectrum.
- That's it, yeah.
They won't be conclusive,
but you can at least get a really quick read and filter.
- Yeah, like you're able to,
'cause you didn't know them ahead of time.
Like, I don't know, probably--
- Like construction zones, failures--
- Or driving anywhere in Russia.
- Yeah, yeah, exactly.
- Snow.
- Weather, cut-ins, dense traffic,
kind of merging lane closures,
animal foreign objects on a road that pop out
on short notice, mechanical failures,
sensor breaking, tire popped,
weird behaviors by other vehicles,
like a hard brake, something reckless that they've done,
fouling of sensors, like bugs or birds,
you know, poop or something.
But yeah, like you have these like kind of like
extreme conditions where like
you have a nasty construction zone
where everything shuts down
and you have to like, you know,
get pulled to the other side of the freeway
with a temporary lane like that, right?
Those are sort of conditions where
we do that to ourselves, right?
We itemize everything that could possibly happen
to give you a starting point to how to think about
what you need to develop.
And at the end of the day,
there's no substitute for real miles.
Like if you think of traditional ML,
§16Transcript · 2:01:38–2:09:58
like you know how there's like a validation set
where you hold out some data and like
real world driving is the ultimate validation set.
That's the, in the end, like the cleanest signal.
But you can do a really good job
on creating an obstacle course.
And you're absolutely right, like at the end,
if there was such a thing as automating
and kind of a readiness,
it would be these extreme conditions
like a red light runner, right?
A really reckless pedestrian that's jaywalking,
a cyclist that, you know,
makes like a really awkward maneuver.
That's actually what keeps you from going driverless.
Like in the end, that is the long tail.
- Yeah, and it's interesting to think about that.
That to me is the Turing test.
Turing test means a lot of things,
but to me in driving,
the Turing test is exactly this validation set
that is handcrafted.
There's a, I don't know if you know him.
There's a guy named Francois Chollet.
He designed, he thinks about like how to design a test
for general intelligence.
He designs these IQ tests for machines.
And the validation set for him is handcrafted.
And that it requires like human genius or ingenuity
to create a really good test.
And you hold, you truly hold it out.
It's an interesting perspective on the validation set,
which is like, make that as hard as possible.
Not a generic representation of the data,
but this is the hardest.
- The hardest stuff.
Yeah, you know, it's like, go.
Like you'll never fully itemize
like all the world states that you'll expand.
And so you have to come up with different approaches.
And this is where you start hitting the struggles of ML,
where ML is fantastic at optimizing the average case.
It's a really unique craft to think about
how you deal with the worst case,
which is what we care about in the Navy space,
when using an ML system on something
that occurs like super infrequently.
So like, you don't care about the worst case really on ads,
because if you miss a few, it's not a big deal,
but you do care about it on the driving side.
And so typically like,
you'll never fully enumerate the world.
And so you have to take a step back and abstract away,
what are the signals that you care about
and the properties of a driver
that correlate to defensive driving
and avoiding nasty situations
that even though you'll always be surprised
by things you'll encounter,
you feel good about your ability to generalize
from what you've learned.
- All right, let me ask you a tricky question.
So to me, the two companies that are building at scale
some of the most incredible robots ever built
is Waymo and Tesla.
So there's very distinct approaches,
technically, philosophically in these two systems.
Let me ask you to play sort of devil's advocate
and then the devil's advocate to the devil's advocate.
It's a bit of a race, of course, everyone can win.
But if Waymo wins this race to level four,
why would they win?
What aspect of the approach
do you think would be the winning aspect?
And if Tesla wins, why would they win?
And which aspect of their approach would be the reason?
Just building some intuition,
almost not from a business perspective,
for me, that's just technically.
- Yeah.
- Yeah, and we could summarize,
I think maybe you can correct me,
one of the more distinct aspects
is Waymo has a richer suite of sensors,
there's LiDAR and vision.
Tesla now removed radar, they do vision only.
Tesla has a larger fleet of vehicles operated by humans,
so it's already deployed on the field
and it's larger, what do you call it, operational domain.
And then Waymo is more focused on a specific domain
and growing it with fewer vehicles.
So both are fascinating approaches,
both are, I think, there's a lot of brilliant ideas,
nobody knows the answer.
So I'd love to get your comments on this lay of the land.
- Yeah, for sure.
So maybe I'll start with Waymo.
And you're right, both incredible companies
and just a gigantic respect
to everything Tesla's accomplished
and how they pushed the field forward as well.
So on the Waymo side, there is a fundamental advantage
in the fact that it is focused
and geared towards L4 from the very beginning.
We've customized the sensor suite for it,
the hardware, the compute, the infrastructure,
the tech stack, and all of the investment inside the company.
That's deceptively important
because there's like a giant spectrum of problems
you have to solve in order to really do this
from infrastructure to hardware,
to autonomy stack, to the safety framework.
And that's an advantage
because there's a reason why it's the fifth generation
hardware and why all of those learnings
went into the Dymor program.
It becomes such an advantage
because you learn a lot as you drive
and you optimize for the best information you have,
but fundamentally, there's a big, big jump,
like every order of magnitude that you drive
in numbers of miles and what you learn
and the gap from really kind of like decent progress
for L2 and so forth to what it takes to actually go L4.
And at the end of the day,
there's a feeling that Waymo has,
there's a long way to go, nobody's won,
but there's a lot of advantages in all of these buckets
where it's the only company that has shipped
a fully driverless service where you can go
and you can use it and it's at a decently sizable scale.
And those learnings can feed forward
into how to solve the more general problem.
- And you see this process you've deployed in Chandler,
you don't know the timeline exactly,
but you could see the steps,
they seem almost incremental, the steps.
- It's become more engineering than totally blind R&D.
- 'Cause it works in one place
and then you move to another place and you grow it this way.
- And just to give you an example,
we fundamentally changed our hardware
and our software stack almost entirely
from what went driverless in Phoenix
to what is the current generation of the system
on both sides because the things that got us to driverless,
even though it got to driverless
way beyond human relative safety,
it is fundamentally not well set up to scale
in an exponential fashion without getting
into huge kind of scaling pains.
And so those learnings, you just can't shortcut.
And so that's an advantage.
And so there's a lot of open challenges
to kind of get through technical organizational,
like how do you solve problems
that are increasingly broad and complex
like this work on multiple products.
But there's a few in that, okay, like balls in our court,
there's a headstart there, now we gotta go and solve it.
And I think that focus on L4,
it's a fundamentally different problem.
If you think about it, like let's say
we were designing an L2 truck that was meant
to be safer and help a human,
you could do that with far less sensors,
far less complexity and provide value very quickly,
arguably with what we already have today,
just packaged up in a good product.
But you would take a huge risk in having a gap
from even the like compute and sensors,
not to mention the software to then jump
from that system to an L4 system.
So it's a huge risk basically.
- So again, allow me to be the person
that plays the devil's advocate
and let's argue for the Tesla approach.
So what you just laid out makes perfect sense
and is exactly right.
There are some open questions here,
which is it's possible that investing more
in faster data collection,
which is essentially what Tesla's doing,
will get us there faster
if the sensor suite doesn't matter as much
and machine learning can do a lot of the work.
This is the open question is,
how much is the thing you mentioned before,
how much of driving can be end to end learned?
That's the open question.
Obviously the Waymo
and the vision only machine learning approach
will solve driving eventually both.
The question is of timeline, what's faster.
- That's right.
And what you mentioned,
like if I were to make the opposite argument,
like what puts Tesla in the strongest position, it's data.
That is their like superpower
where they have an access to real world data
§17Transcript · 2:10:02–2:17:46
effectively with like a safety driver.
And they found a way to like get paid by safety drivers
versus safer safety drivers.
It's brilliant, right?
But all joking aside,
like one, it is incredible that they've built a business
that's incredibly successful
that can now be a foundation and bootstrap
kind of like really aggressive investment
in autonomy space.
If you can do it,
that's always like an incredible kind of advantage.
And then the data aspect of it,
it is a giant amount of data.
If you can use it the right way to then solve the problem,
but the ability to collect and filter through the things
to the things that matter at real world scale,
at like a large distribution, that is huge.
Like it's a big advantage.
And so then the question becomes,
can you use it in our right way?
And do you have the right software systems
and hardware systems in order to solve the problem?
And you're right that in the longterm,
there's no reason to believe
that pure camera systems can't solve the problem
that humans obviously are solving with vision systems.
But-
- Question is when?
- It's a risk.
It's a big risk.
So there's no argument that it's not a risk, right?
And it's already such a hard problem.
And so much of that problem, by the way,
is even beyond the perception side,
some of the hardest elements of the problem
in our behavioral side and decision-making
and the long tail safety case,
if you are adding risk and complexity
on the input side from perception,
you're now making a really, really hard problem
which on its own is still almost insurmountably hard,
even harder.
And so the question is just how much.
And this is where you can easily get into a little bit
of a kind of a trap where similar to how you,
how do you evaluate how good an AV company's product is?
Like you go and you do a trial,
kind of a test run with them, a demo run,
which they've kind of optimized like crazy and so forth.
And like, and it feels good.
Do you put any weight in that, right?
You know that that gap is kind of like pretty large still.
Same thing on the like perception case,
like the long tail of computer vision
is really, really hard.
And there's a lot of ways that that can come up.
And even if it doesn't happen that often at all,
when you think about the safety bar
and what it takes to actually go full driverless,
not like incredible assistance driverless,
but full driverless, that bar gets crazy high.
And not only do you have to solve it on the behavioral side,
but now you have to push computer vision
beyond arguably where it's ever been pushed.
And so you now on top of the broader AV challenge,
you have a really hard perception challenge as well.
- So there's perception, there's planning,
there's human robot interaction.
To me, what's fascinating about what Tesla is doing
is in this march towards level four,
because it's in the hands of so many humans,
you get to see video, you get to see humans.
I mean, forget companies, forget businesses.
It's fascinating for humans to be interacting with robots.
- That's incredible.
And they're actually helping kind of push it forward.
And that is valuable by the way,
where even for us, a decent percentage of our data
is human driving.
We intentionally have humans drive higher percentage
than you might expect,
because that creates some of the best signals
to train the autonomy.
And so that is on its own value.
- So together we're kind of learning about this problem
in an applied sense, just like you had with Cosmo.
When you're chasing an actual product
that people are going to use, robot-based product
that people are going to use,
you have to contend with the reality
of what it takes to build a robot
that successfully perceives the world
and operates in the world,
and what it takes to have a robot
that interacts with other humans in the world.
And that's like, to me, one of the most interesting problems
humans have ever undertaken,
because you're in trying to create an intelligent agent
that operates in a human world,
you're also understanding the nature of intelligence itself.
Like how hard is driving?
It's still not answered to me.
I still don't understand.
- All the subtle cues, even little things
like your interaction with a pedestrian
where you look at each other and just go, okay, go.
That's hard to do without a human driver, right?
And you're missing that dimension.
How do you communicate that?
So there's really, really interesting
kind of elements here.
Now here's what's beautiful.
Can you imagine that when autonomous driving is solved,
how much of the technology foundation of that space
can go and have tremendous, just transformative impacts
on other problem areas and other spaces
that have subsets of these same problems?
It's just incredible to think about that.
- It's both a pro and a con.
With autonomous driving is so safety critical.
Once you solve it, it's beautiful
because there's so many applications
that are a lot less safety critical.
But it's also the con of that is it's so hard to solve.
And the same journalists that you mentioned
that get excited for a demo are the ones
who write long articles about the failure of your company
if there's one accident that's based on a robot.
And it's just society's so tense
and waiting for failure of robots.
You're in such a high stake environment.
Failure has such a high cost.
- And it slows down development.
- It slows down development.
- Yeah, the team definitely noticed
that once you go driverless,
like we're driverless in Phoenix
and you continue to iterate,
your iteration pace slows down
because your fear of regression forces so much more rigor
that obviously you have to find a compromise on like,
okay, well, how often do we release driverless builds?
Because every time you release a driverless build,
you have to go through this validation process,
which is very expensive and so forth.
So it is interesting.
It's like, it is one of the hardest things.
There's no other industry where like,
you would not like,
you wouldn't release the products way, way quicker
when you start to kind of provide
even portions of the value that you provide.
Healthcare maybe is the other one.
- Health, that's right.
- But at the same time, right?
Like we've gotten there where you think of like surgery,
right?
Like you have surgery, there's always a risk,
but like, it's really, really bounded.
You know that there's an accident rate
when you go out and drive your car today, right?
Like, and you know what the fatality rate
in the US is per year.
We're not banning driving because there was a car accident,
but the bar for us is way higher.
And we hold ourselves very serious to it,
where you have to not only be better than a human,
but you probably have to like at scale,
be far better than a human by a big margin.
And you have to be able to like really,
really thoughtfully explain all of the ways
that we validate that becomes very comfortable
for humans to understand,
because a bunch of jargon that we use internally
just doesn't compute at the end of the day.
We have to be able to explain to society,
how do we quantify the risk and acknowledge
that there is some non-zero risk,
but it's far above a human, you know, relative safety.
- See, here's the thing to push back a little bit
and bring Cosmo back in the conversation.
You said something quite brilliant
at the beginning of this conversation,
I think probably applies for autonomous driving,
which is, you know, there's this desire
to make autonomous cars more safer
than human driven cars.
But if you create a product that's really compelling
and is able to explain both the leadership
and the engineers and the product itself
can communicate intent,
then I think people may be able to be willing
to put up with the thing that might be even riskier
than humans, because they understand
the value of taking risks.
You mentioned the speed limit.
Humans understand the value of going over the speed limit.
Humans understand the value of like going fast
through a yellow light.
§18Transcript · 2:17:48–2:26:36
To take, and when you're in Manhattan streets,
pushing through, crossing pedestrians,
they understand that.
I mean, this is a much more tense topic of discussion,
so this is just me talking.
So in Cosmo's case, there was something about the way
this particular robot communicated,
the energy it brought, the intent it was able
to communicate to the humans,
that you understood that of course
it needs to have a camera.
Of course it needs to have this information.
And in that same way, to me,
of course a car needs to take risks.
Of course there's going to be accidents.
If you want a car that never has an accident,
have a car that just doesn't go anywhere.
But that's tricky, because that's not a robotics problem.
- And many accidents are not even due to you, right?
Obviously it's, so there's a big difference though.
That's not a personal decision.
You're also impacting obviously kind of the rest
of the road, and we're facilitating it, right?
And so there's a higher kind of ethical and moral bar,
which obviously then translates into, as a society,
and from a regulatory standpoint,
kind of like what comes out of it,
where it's hard for us to ever see this even being a debate
in the sense that like, you have to be beyond reproach
from a safety standpoint,
because if you're wrong about this,
you could set the entire field back a decade, right?
- See, this is me speaking.
I think if we look into the future, there will be,
I personally believe, this is me speaking,
that there will be less and less focus on safety.
That's still very, very high.
- Yeah, meaning like after autonomy
is very common and accepted.
- But not so common that it's everywhere,
but there has to be a transition,
because I think for innovation, just like you were saying,
to explore ideas, you have to take risks.
And I think if autonomy in the near term
is to become prevalent in society,
I think people need to be more willing
to understand the nature of risk, the value of risk.
It's very difficult, you're right, of course, with driving,
but that's the fascinating nature of it.
It's a life and death situation
that brings value to millions of people.
So you have to figure out what do we value about this world?
How much do we value,
how deeply do we want to avoid hurting other humans?
- That's right.
And there is a point where like,
you can imagine a scenario where Waymo has a system
that is even when it's like kind of beyond
human relative safety and provably statistically
will save lives, there is a thoughtful navigation
of that fact versus just kind of society readiness
and perception and education of society and regulators
and everything else where like, it's multi-dimensional
and it's not a purely logical argument,
but ironically, the logic can actually help
with the emotions.
And just like any technology, there's early adopters
and then there's kind of like a curve
that happens after it.
- But eventually celebrities, you get the rock
in a Waymo vehicle and then everybody just comes.
- And then everybody's comes down
'cause the rock likes it, yeah.
(laughing)
- If you post the-
- Yeah, and it's like, it's an open question
on how this plays out.
I mean, maybe we're pleasantly surprised
and it just like, people just realize
that this is such a enabler of life
and like efficiency and cost and everything
that there's a pull, like at some point
I should fully believe that this will go
from a thoughtful kind of movement and tiptoeing
and like kind of like a push to society realizes
how wonderful of an enabler this could become
and it becomes more of a pull
and hard to know exactly how that'll play out,
but at the end of the day,
like both the goods transportation
and the people transportation side of it
has that property where it's not easy.
There's a lot of open questions and challenges to navigate
and there's obviously the technical problems to solve
as a kind of prerequisite,
but they have such an opportunity that is on a scale
that very few industries in the last 20, 30 years
have even had a chance to tackle
that I maybe were pleasantly surprised
by how much that tipping point,
like in a really short amount of time
actually turns into a societal pull
to kind of embrace the benefits of this.
- Yeah, I hope so.
It seems like in the recent few decades,
there's been tipping points for technologies
where like overnight things change.
It's like from taxis to ride sharing services,
all that shift.
I mean, there's just shift after shift after shift
that requires digitization and technology.
I hope we're pleasantly surprised in this.
So there's millions of long haul trucks
now in the United States.
Do you see a future where there's millions
of way more trucks and maybe just broadly speaking,
way more vehicles, just like ants running around
the United States, freeways and local roads?
- Yeah, and other countries too.
You look back decades from now
and it might be one of those things
that just feels so natural
and then it becomes almost like this kind of interesting
kind of oddity that we had none of it,
like kind of decades earlier.
And it'll take a long time to grow in scale.
Very different challenges appear at every stage.
But over time, like this is one of the most enabling
technologies that we have in the world today.
It'll feel like, how was the world before the internet?
How was the world before mobile phones?
Like it's gonna have that sort of a feeling
to it on both sides.
- It's hard to predict the future,
but do you sometimes think about weird ways
it might change the world?
Like surprising ways.
So obviously there's more direct ways
where like there's increases efficiency.
It will enable a lot of kind of logistics,
optimizations kind of things.
It will change probably our roadways
and all that kind of stuff.
But it could also change society
in some kind of interesting ways.
Do you ever think about how it might change cities?
How it might change our lives?
All that kind of stuff.
- You can imagine city where people live versus work
becoming more distributed because the pain of commuting
becomes different, just easier.
There's a lot of options that open up.
The layout of cities themselves
and how you think about car storage and parking
obviously just enables a completely different type
of experience in urban environments.
I think there was like a statistic that something like
30% of the traffic in cities during rush hour
is caused by pursuit of parking
or something like some really high stats.
So those obviously kind of open up a lot of options.
Flexibility on goods will enable new industries
and businesses that never existed before
because now the efficiency becomes more palatable.
Good delivery, timing, consistency
and flexibility is gonna change.
The way we distribute the logistics network will change.
The way we then can integrate with warehousing,
with shipping ports.
You can start to think about greater automation
through the whole kind of stack
and how that supply chain, the ripples become much more agile
versus like very grindy the way they are today
where just the adaptation is like very tough
and there's like a lot of constraints that we have.
I think it'll be great for the environment.
It'll be great for safety where like probably
about 95% of accidents today statistically
are due to just attention or things that are preventable
with the strengths of automation.
Yeah, and it'll be one of those things
where like industries will shift,
but the net creation is gonna be massively positive.
And then we just have to be thoughtful
about the negative implications that will happen
in local places and adjust for those.
But I'm an optimist in general for the technology
where you could argue a negative on any new technology,
but you start to kind of see that
if there is a big demand for something like this,
that in almost all cases,
that like it's an enabling factor
that's gonna kind of propagate through society.
And particularly as life expectancies get longer
and so forth, like there's just a lot more need
for a greater percentage of the population
to kind of just be serviced with a high level of efficiency
because otherwise we're gonna have a really hard time
kind of scaling to what's ahead in the next 50 years.
- Yeah, and you're absolutely right.
§19Transcript · 2:26:37–2:35:15
Every technology has negative consequences
and positive consequences.
And we tend to focus on the negative a little bit too much.
In fact, autonomous trucks are often brought up
as an example of artificial intelligence
and robots in general taking our jobs.
And as we've talked about briefly here,
we talk a lot with Steve, you know,
that it is a concern that automation
will take away certain jobs, it'll create other jobs.
So there's temporary pain, hopefully temporary,
but pain is pain and people suffer.
And that human suffering is really important
to think about how, but trucking is,
I mean, there's a lot written on this,
is I would say far from the thing
that will cause the most pain.
- Yeah, there's even more positive properties
about trucking where not only is there just a huge shortage
which is gonna increase,
the average age of truck drivers is getting closer to 50
because the younger people aren't wanting to come into it.
They're trying to like incentivize, lower the age limit,
like all these sorts of things.
And the demand is just gonna increase.
And the least favorable, like, I mean, it depends
on the person, but in most cases,
the least favorable types of routes
are the massive long haul routes
where you're on the road away from your family
300 plus days a year.
- Steve's talked about the pain of those kinds of routes
from a family perspective.
You're basically away from family.
It's not just hours, you work insane hours,
but it's also just time away from family.
- Obesity rate is through the roof
because you're just sitting all day.
Like it's really, really tough.
And that's also where like the biggest kind of safety risk
is because of fatigue.
And so when you think of the gradual evolution
of how trucking comes in, first of all, it's not overnight.
It's gonna take decades to kind of phase in all the,
like there's just a long, long, long road ahead,
but the routes and the portions of trucking
that are gonna require humans the longest
and benefit the most from humans are the short haul
and most complicated kind of more urban routes,
which are also the more pleasant ones,
which are less continual driving time,
more flexibility on like geography and location.
And you get to kind of sleep at your own home.
- And very importantly, if you optimize the logistics,
you're going to use humans much better
and thereby pay them much better.
Because like one of the biggest problems
is truck drivers currently are paid
by like how much they drive.
So they really feel the pain of inefficient logistics.
Because like if they're just sitting around for hours,
which they often do not driving, waiting,
they're not getting paid for that time.
- That's right.
- So like logistics has a significant impact
on the quality of life of a truck driver.
- And a high percentage of trucks are like empty
because of inefficiencies in the system.
Yeah, it's one of those things where like,
and the other thing is when you increase the efficiency
of a system like this,
the overall net like volume of the system
tends to increase, right?
Like the entire market cap of trucking is going to go up
when the efficiency improves
and facilitates both growth in industries
and better utilization of trucking.
And so that on its own just creates more and more demand,
which of all the places where AI comes in
and starts to really kind of reshape an industry,
this is one of those where like,
there's just a lot of positives that for at least any time
in the foreseeable future seem really lined up
in a good way to kind of come in and help with the shortage
and start to kind of optimize for the routes
that are most dangerous and most painful.
- Yeah, so this is true for trucking,
but if we zoom out broader,
automation and AI does technology broadly, I would say,
but automation is a thing that has a potential
in the next couple of decades to shift
the kind of jobs available to humans.
And so that results in, like I said, human suffering
because people lose their jobs, there's economic pain there.
And there's also a pain of meaning.
So for a lot of people, work is a source of meaning,
it's a source of identity, of pride,
pride in getting good at the job,
pride in craftsmanship and excellence,
which is what truck drivers talk about.
But this is true for a lot of jobs.
And is that something you think about as a sort of a robotic
is zooming out from the trucking thing,
like where do you think it would be harder
to find activity and work that's a source of identity,
a source of meaning in the future?
- I do think about it because you want to make sure
that you worry about the entire system,
like not just like the part of how it plays in it,
but what are the ripple effects of it down the road.
And on enough of a time window,
there's a lot of opportunity to put in the right policies,
the right opportunities to kind of reshape and retrain
and find those openings.
And so just to give you a few examples,
both trucking and cars, we have remote assistance facilities
that are there to interface with customers
and monitor vehicles and provide like very focused
kind of assistance on kind of areas where the vehicle
may want to request help in understanding an environment.
So those are jobs that kind of get created and supported.
I remember like taking a tour of one of the Amazon facilities
where you've probably seen the Kiva Systems robots,
where you have these orange robots that have automated
the warehouse, like kind of picking and collecting of items.
And it's like really elegant and beautiful way.
It's actually one of my favorite applications
of robotics of all time.
Like I think it kind of came across that company
like 2006, it was just amazing.
And what was the--
- Warehouse robots that transport little things.
- So basically instead of a person going and walking around
and picking the seven items in your order,
these robots go and pick up a shelf and move it over
in a row where like the seven shelves that contain
the seven items are lined up in a laser or whatever points
to what you need to get.
And you go and pick it and you place it to fill the order.
And so the people are fulfilling the final orders.
What was interesting about that is that
when I was asking them about like kind of the impact
on labor, when they transitioned that warehouse,
the throughput increased so much that the jobs shifted
towards the final fulfillment,
even though the robots took over entirely
the search of the items themselves and the labor,
the job stayed like nobody,
like there was actually the same amount of jobs
roughly that were necessary,
but the throughput increased by like,
I think over two X or some amount, right?
Like, so you have these situations that are not zero sum
games in this really interesting way.
And the optimist to me thinks that there's these types
of solutions in almost any industry where the growth
that's enabled creates opportunities
that you can then leverage,
but you gotta be intentional about finding those
and really helping make those links.
Because even if you make the argument that like,
there's a net positive,
locally there's always tough hits
that you gotta be very careful about.
- That's right.
You have to have an understanding of that link
because there's a short period of time,
whether training is acquired or just mental transition
or physical or whatever is acquired,
that's still gonna be short-term pain.
The uncertainty of it, there's families involved.
I mean, it's exceptionally,
it's difficult on a human level
and you have to really think about that.
You can't just look at economic metrics always,
it's human beings.
- That's right.
And you can't even just take it as like, okay,
well, we need to like subsidize or whatever,
because like there is an element of just personal pride
where majority of people don't wanna just be okay,
but like they wanna actually like have a craft,
like you said, and have a mission
and feel like they're having a really positive impact.
And so my personal belief is that
there's a lot of transferability and skillset
that is possible, especially if you create a bridge
and an investment to enable it.
And to some degree, that's our responsibility as well,
this process.
- You mentioned Kiva Robots, Amazon.
Let me ask you about the Astro Robot,
which is, I don't know if you've seen it.
Amazon has announced that it's a home robot
that they have, the screen looks awfully a lot like Cosmo,
has I think different vision probably.
What are your thoughts about like home robotics
in this kind of space?
There's been quite a bunch of home robots,
social robots that very unfortunately
§20Transcript · 2:35:18–2:43:13
have closed their doors for various reasons,
perhaps they were too expensive,
there's been manufacturing challenges,
all that kind of stuff.
What are your thoughts about Amazon getting into this space?
- Yeah, we had some signs that they're getting into it
like long, long, long ago.
Maybe they were a little bit too interested in Cosmo
and I drew in our conversations,
but they're also very good partners actually for us
as we kind of just integrated a lot of shared technology.
- If I could also get your thoughts on,
you could think of Alexa as a robot as well, Echo.
Do you see those as fundamentally different
just because you can move and look around,
is that fundamentally different
than the thing that just sits in place?
- It opens up options,
but my first reaction is I think like,
I have my doubts that this one's gonna hit the mark
because I think for the price point that it's at
and the kind of functionality and value propositions
that they're trying to put out,
it's still searching for the kill application
that justifies, I think it was like a $1,500 price point
or kind of somewhere on there.
That's a really high bar.
So there's enthusiasts and early adopters
will obviously kind of pursue it,
but you have to really, really hit a high mark
at that price point, which we always tried to,
we were always very cautious about jumping too quickly
to the more advanced systems that we really wanted to make,
but would have raised the bar so much
you have to be able to hit it
in today's cost structures and technologies.
The mobility is an angle that hasn't been utilized,
but it has to be utilized in the right way.
And so that's gonna be the biggest challenge
is like, can you meet the bar
of what the mass market consumer,
like think like our neighbors, our friends, parents,
like would they find a deep, deep value
like in this at a mass scale
that justifies the price point?
I think that's in the end,
one of the biggest challenges for robotics,
especially consumer robotics,
where you have to kind of meet that bar,
it becomes very, very hard.
- And there's also the higher bar,
just like you were saying with Cosmo of,
you know, a thing that can look one way
and then turn around and look at you,
that's either a super desirable quality
or super undesirable quality,
depending on how much you trust the thing.
- That's right.
So there's a problem of trust to solve there.
There's a problem of personality.
It's the thing that is the quote unquote problem
that Cosmo solved so well,
is that you trust the thing.
And that has to do with the company,
with the leadership,
with the intent that's communicated by the device
and the company and everything together.
- Yeah, exactly right.
And so, and I think they also have to retrace
some of the like warnings on the character side
where like, as usual,
I think that's the place where it's a,
a lot of companies are great at the hardware side of it
and can, you know,
think about those elements.
And then there's like, you know,
the thinking about the AI challenges,
particularly with the advantage of Alexa
is a pretty huge boost for them.
The character side of it for technology companies
is pretty new, novel territory.
And so that will take some iterations,
but yeah, I mean, I hope,
I hope there's continued progress in this space
and that thread doesn't kind of go dormant for too long.
And it's not, you know,
it's gonna take a while to kind of evolve
into like the ideal applications,
but you know, this is one of Amazon's,
I guess like you could call it,
it's definitely like part of their DNA,
but in many cases is also strength
where they're very willing to like iterate
kind of aggressively and move quickly.
- Not take risks.
- And take risks.
- You have deep pockets so you can kind of.
- Yeah, and then maybe have more misfires
than an apple would,
but you know, it's different styles
and different approaches.
And you know, at the end of the day,
it's like there's a few familiar kind of elements there
for sure, which was, you know, kind of.
- Homage.
Is one way to put it.
So why is it so hard at a high level
to build a robotics company,
a robotics company that lives for a long time?
So if you look at,
so I thought Cosmo for sure would live for a very long time.
That to me was exceptionally successful vision
and idea and implementation.
iRobot is an example of a company
that has pivoted in all the right ways to survive
and arguably thrive by focusing on the,
having like a, have a driver that constantly provides profit,
which is the vacuum cleaner.
And of course there's like Amazon,
what they're doing is they're almost like taking risks
so they can afford it
because they have other sources of revenue, right?
But outside of those examples,
most robotics companies fail.
- Yeah.
- Why do they fail?
Why is it so hard to run a robotics company?
- iRobot's impressive because they found
a really, really great fit of where the technology
could satisfy a really clear use case and need.
And they did it well,
and they didn't try to overshoot
from a cost to benefit standpoint.
Robotics is hard because it like tends to be more expensive.
It combines way more technologies
than a lot of other types of companies do.
If I were to like say one thing
that is maybe the biggest risk
in like a robotics company failing
is that it can be either a technology
in search of a application,
or they try to bite off a kind of an offering
that has a mismatch in kind of price to function.
And just the mass market appeal isn't there.
And consumer products are just hard.
It's just, I mean, after all the years in it,
like definitely kind of feel a lot of the battle scars
because you have, you know,
you not only do you have to like hit the function,
but you have to educate and explain, get awareness up,
deal with different types of consumers.
Like, you know, there's a reason why a lot of technologies
sometimes start in the enterprise space
and then kind of continue forward in the consumer space.
Even like, you know, you see AR like starting
to kind of make that shift with HoloLens
and so forth in some ways,
consumers and price points that they're willing
to kind of be attracted in a mass market way.
And I don't mean like, you know,
10,000 enthusiasts bought it,
but I mean like, you know, 2 million, 10 million,
50 million, like mass market kind of interest,
you know, have bought it.
That bar is very, very high.
And typically robotics is novel enough
and non-standardized enough
to where it pushes on price points so much
that you can easily get out of range
where the capabilities in today's technology
or just the function that was picked just doesn't line up.
And so that product market fit is very important.
- So the space of killer apps
or rather super compelling apps is much smaller
because it's easy to get outside of the price range.
- Yeah. - For most consumers.
- And it's not constant, right?
Like, that's why like we picked off entertainment
because the quality was just so low
in physical entertainment
that we felt we could leapfrog that
and still create a really compelling offering
at a price point that was defensible.
And we, like that proved out to be true.
And over time, that same opportunity opens up in healthcare,
in home applications, in commercial applications
and kind of broader, more generalized interface.
But there's missing pieces in order for that to happen.
And all of those have to be present for it to line up.
And we see these sort of trends in technology where,
you know, kind of technologies that start in one place
evolve and kind of grow to another.
Some things start in gaming,
some things start in space or aerospace
and then kind of move into the consumer market.
And sometimes it's just a timing thing, right?
Where how many stabs at what became the iPhone
were there over the 20 years before
that just weren't quite ready in the function
relative to the kind of price point and complexity.
§21Transcript · 2:43:16–2:51:27
- And sometimes it's a small detail of the implementation
that makes all the difference,
which is design is so important.
- Something, yeah, like the new generation UX, right?
- Yeah.
- And that's, it's tough.
And oftentimes all of them have to be there
and it has to be like a perfect storm.
And, but yeah, history repeats itself in a lot of ways
in a lot of these trends, which is pretty fascinating.
- Well, let me ask you about the humanoid form.
What do you think about the Tesla bot
and humanoid robotics in general?
So obviously to me, autonomous driving,
Waymo and the other companies working in the space,
that seems to be a great place to invest
in potential revolutionary application of robotics,
application, folks, application.
What's the role of humanoid robotics?
Do you think Tesla bot is ridiculous?
Do you think it's super promising?
Do you think it's interesting, full of mystery?
Nobody knows.
What do you think about this thing?
- Yeah, I think today humanoid form robotics is research.
There's very few situations
where you actually need a humanoid form
to solve a problem.
If you think about it, right,
like wheels are more efficient than legs.
There's joints and degrees of freedom
beyond a certain point,
just add a lot of complexity and cost, right?
So if you're doing a humanoid robot,
oftentimes it's in the pursuit of a humanoid robot,
not in the pursuit of an application for the time being.
Especially when you have like kind of the gaps in interface
and, you know, kind of AI that we kind of talk about today.
So anything Elon does, I'm interested in following.
So there's an element of that world.
- No matter how crazy.
- How crazy it is.
It's like, you know, I'll pay attention
and I'm curious to see what comes out of it.
So it's like, you can't ever, you know, ignore it.
But, you know, it's definitely far afield
from their kind of core business, obviously.
And-
- What was interesting to me,
is I've disagreed with Elon a lot about this,
is to me, the compelling aspect of the humanoid form
and a lot of kind of robots, Cosmo, for example,
is a human robot interaction part.
From Elon Musk's perspective,
Tesla bot has nothing to do with the human.
It's a form that's effective for the factory
because the factory is designed for humans.
But to me, the reason you might want to argue
for the humanoid form is because, you know, at a party,
it's a nice way to fit into the party.
The humanoid form has a compelling notion to it
in the same way that Cosmo is compelling.
I would argue, if we were arguing about this,
that it's cheaper to build a Cosmo, like that form.
But if you wanted to make an argument,
which I have with Jim Keller about, you know,
you could actually make a humanoid robot
for pretty cheap, it's possible.
And then the question is, all right,
if you're using an application where it can be flawed,
it can have a personality and be flawed
in the same way that Cosmo is,
then maybe it's interesting
for integration to human society.
That's, to me, is an interesting application
of a humanoid form, 'cause humans are drawn,
like I mentioned to you, legged robots,
we're drawn to legs and limbs and body language
and all that kind of stuff.
And even a face, even if you don't have the facial features,
which you might not want to have
to reduce the creepiness factor, all that kind of stuff.
But yeah, that, to me, the humanoid form is compelling.
But in terms of that being the right form
for the factory environment, I'm not so sure.
- Yeah, for the factory environment,
like right off the bat, what are you optimizing for?
Is it strength?
Is it mobility?
Is it versatility, right?
Like that changes completely the look and feel
of the robot that you create.
You know, and almost certainly the human form
is over-designed for some dimensions
and constrained for some dimensions.
And so, like, what are you grasping?
Is it big?
Is it little, right?
And how do you customize it and make it customizable
for the different needs, if that was the optimization, right?
And then, you know, for the other one,
I could totally be wrong.
You know, I still feel that the closer you try to get
to a human, the more you're subject to the biases
of what a human should be, and you lose flexibility
to shift away from your weaknesses
and towards your strengths.
And that changes over time,
but there's ways to make really approachable
and natural interfaces for robotic kind of characters
and, you know, and kind of deployments
in these applications that do not at all
look like a human directly,
but that actually creates way more flexibility
and capability and role and forgiveness
and interface and everything else.
- Yeah, it's interesting,
but I'm still confused by the magic I see in legged robots.
- Yeah, so there is a magic.
So I'm absolutely amazed at it
from a technical curiosity standpoint
and like the magic that like the Boston Dynamics team
can do from, you know, like from walking
and jumping and so forth.
Now, like there's been a long journey
to try to find an application for that sort of technology,
but wow, that's incredible technology, right?
- Yes.
- Then you kind of go towards, okay,
are you working back from a goal
of what you're trying to solve
or are you working forward from a technology
and then looking for a solution?
And I think that's where it's a kind of
a bidirectional search oftentimes,
but you got to, the two have to meet.
And that's where humanoid robots is kind of close to that
in that like it is a decision about a form factor
and a technology that it forces
that doesn't have a clear justification
on why that's the killer app or, you know,
from the other end.
- I think the core fascinating idea with the Tesla bot
is the one that's carried by Waymo as well
is when you're solving the general robotics problem
of perception control,
where there's the very clear applications of driving.
It's as you get better and better at it,
when you have like Waymo driver,
the whole world starts to kind of start to look
like a robotics problem.
So it's very interesting for now.
- Detection, classification, segmentation,
tracking, planning, like it's, yeah.
- So there's no reason, I mean,
I'm not speaking for Waymo here,
but you know, moving goods,
there's no reason transformer like this thing
couldn't take the goods up an elevator, you know?
Like slowly expand what it means to move goods
and expand more and more of the world
into a robotics problem.
- Well, that's right.
And you start to like,
think of it as an end-to-end robotics problem
from like loading from, you know, from everything.
And even like the truck itself,
you know, today's generation is integrating
into today's understanding of what a vehicle is, right?
The Pacifica, Jaguar, the Freightliners from Daimler.
There's nothing that stops these,
us from like down the road after like
starting to get to scale,
to like expand these partnerships to really rethink
what would the next generation of a truck look like
that is actually optimized for autonomy,
not for today's world.
And maybe that means a very different type of trailer.
Maybe that like,
there's a lot of things you could rethink on that front,
which is on its own, very, very exciting.
- Let me ask you, like I said,
you went to the Mecca of robotics,
which is CMU, Carnegie Mellon University.
You got a PhD there.
So maybe by way of advice and maybe by way of story
and memories, what does it take to get a PhD
in robotics at CMU?
And maybe you can throw in there some advice
for people who are thinking about doing work
in artificial intelligence and robotics
and are thinking about whether to get a PhD.
- It's funny, I asked you what,
I was at CMU for undergrad as well
and didn't know anything about robotics coming in
and was doing, you know, electrical computer engineering,
computer science,
and really got more and more into kind of AI
and then fell in love with autonomous driving.
And at that point, like that was just by a big margin,
§22Transcript · 2:51:30–2:59:15
like such a incredible, like central spot
of investment in that area.
And so what I would say is that like robotics,
like for all the progress that's happened
is still a really young field.
There's a huge amount of opportunity.
Now that opportunity shifted
where something like autonomous driving
has moved from being very research and academics driven
to being commercial driven
where you see the investments happening
in commercial.
Now there's other areas that are much younger
and you see like kind of grasping and manipulation,
making kind of the same sort of journey
that like autonomy made,
and there's other areas as well.
What I would say is the space moves very quickly.
Anything you do a PhD in,
like it is in most areas will evolve and change
as technology changes and constraints change
and hardware changes and the world changes.
And so the beautiful thing about robotics
is it's super broad.
It's not a narrow space at all,
and it could be a million different things
in a million different industries.
And so it's a great opportunity to come in
and get a broad foundation on AI,
machine learning, computer vision,
systems, hardware, sensors,
all these separate things.
You do need to like go deep
and find something that you're like
really, really passionate about.
Obviously, like just like any PhD,
this is like a five, six year kind of endeavor.
And you have to love it enough to go super deep
to learn all the things necessary
to be super deeply functioning in that area
and then contribute to it in a way
that hasn't been done before.
And in robotics, that probably means more breadth
because robotics is rarely kind of like
one particular kind of narrow technology.
And it means being able to collaborate with teams
where like one of the coolest aspects of like
the experience that I like kind of cherish in our PhD
is that we actually had a pretty large AV project
that for that time was like a pretty serious initiative
where you got to like partner with a larger team
and you had the experts in perception
and the experts in planning and the staff
and the mechanical engineers.
- It was a DARPA challenge.
- So I was working on a project called UPI back then,
which was basically the off-road version
of the DARPA challenge.
It was a DARPA funded project for basically
like a large off-road vehicle that you would like drop
and then give it a waypoint 10 kilometers away
and it would have to navigate a completely unstructured--
- In an off-road environment.
- Yeah, so like forest, ditches, rocks, vegetation.
And so it was like a really, really interesting
kind of a hard problem where like wheels
would be off to my shoulders.
It's like gigantic, right?
- Yeah, by the way, AV for people
stands for autonomous vehicles.
- Autonomous vehicles, yeah, sorry.
And so what I think is like the beauty of robotics,
but also kind of like the expectation is that
there's spaces in computer science
where you can be very, very narrow and deep.
Robotics, the necessity, but also the beauty of it
is that it forces you to be excited about that breadth
and that partnership across different disciplines
that enable it.
But that also opens up so many more doors
where you can go and you can do robotics
in almost any category where robotics
isn't really an industry.
It's like AI, right?
It's like the application of physical automation
to all these other worlds.
And so you can do robotic surgery, you can do vehicles,
you can do factory automation, you can do healthcare,
you can do like leverage the AI around the sensing
to think about static sensors and scene understanding.
So I think that's gotta be the expectation
and the excitement and it breeds people
that are probably a little bit more collaborative
and more excited about working in teams.
- If I could briefly comment on the fact
that the robotics people I've met in my life
from CMU and MIT, they're really happy people.
- Yeah.
- Because I think it's the collaborative thing.
I think you don't...
(laughs)
You're not like sitting in like the fourth basement.
- Yes, exactly.
Which when you're doing machine learning purely software,
it's very tempting to just disappear into your own hole
and never collaborate.
And that breeds a little bit more of the silo mentality
of like, I have a problem.
It's almost like negative to talk to somebody else
or something like that.
But robotics folks are just very collaborative,
very friendly and just...
And there's also an energy of like,
you get to confront the physics of reality often,
which is humbling and also exciting.
So it's humbling when it fails
and exciting when it finally works.
- It's like a purity of the passion.
You got to remember that like right now,
like robotics and AI is like just all the rage
and autonomous vehicles and all this.
Like 15 years ago and 20 years ago,
like it wasn't that deeply lucrative.
People that went into robotics,
they did it because they were like,
thought it was just the coolest thing in the world.
They wanted to like make physical things intelligent
in the real world.
And so there's like a raw passion
where they went into it for the right reasons and so forth.
So it's really great space.
And that organizational challenge, by the way,
like when you think about the challenges in AV,
we talk a lot about the technical challenges.
The organizational challenges through the roof,
where you think about what it takes to build an AV system
and you have companies that are now thousands of people.
And you look at other really hard technical problems,
like an operating system, it's pretty well established.
Like you kind of know that there's a file system,
there's virtual memory, there's this, there's that,
there's like caching and like,
and there's like a really reasonably well-established
modularity and APIs and so forth.
And so you can kind of like scale it in an efficient fashion
that doesn't exist anywhere near to that level of maturity
in autonomous driving right now.
And tech stacks are being reinvented,
organizational structures are being reinvented.
You have problems like pedestrians
that are not isolated problems.
They're part sensing, part behavior prediction,
part planning, part evaluation.
And like one of the biggest challenges is actually
how do you solve these problems
where the mental capacity of a human
is starting to get strained on how do you organize it
and think about it, where you have this like
multi-dimensional matrix that needs to all work together.
And so that makes it kind of cool as well,
because it's not like solved at all from,
you know, like what does it take to actually scale this?
Right?
And then you look at like other gigantic challenges
that have, you know, that have been successful
and are way more mature, there's a stability to it.
And like, maybe the autonomous vehicle space will get there,
but right now, just as many technical challenges
as they are, they're like organizational challenges
on how do you like solve these problems
that touch on so many different areas
and efficiently tackle them
while like maintaining progress
among all these constraints while scaling.
- By way of advice, what advice would you give
to somebody thinking about doing a robotic startup?
You mentioned Cosmo, somebody that wanted to carry
the Cosmo flag forward, the Anki flag forward.
Looking back at your experience,
looking forward at a future
that will obviously have such robots,
what advice would you give to that person?
- Yeah, it was the greatest experience ever.
And it's like, there's something you,
there are things you learn navigating a startup
that you'll never like, it was very hard to encounter that
in like a typical kind of work environment.
And it's just, it's wonderful.
You gotta be ready for it.
It's not as like, you know, the glamor of a startup,
there's just like just brutal emotional swings up and down.
And so having co-founders actually helps a ton.
Like I would not, could not imagine doing it solo,
but having at least somebody where on your darkest days,
you can kind of like really openly just like
have that conversation and, you know,
lean onto somebody that's in the thick of it with you,
helps a lot.
What I would say--
- What was the nature of darkest days
§23Transcript · 2:59:17–3:06:52
and the emotional swings?
Is it worried about the funding?
Is it worried about whether any of your ideas
are any good or ever were good?
Is it like the self-doubt?
Is it like facing new challenges
that have nothing to do with the technology,
like organizational, human resources,
that kind of stuff?
- Yeah, you come from a world in school
where you feel that you put in a lot of effort
and you'll get the right result
and input translates proportional to output.
And, you know, you need to solve the set or do whatever
and just kind of get it done.
Now, PhD tests out a little bit,
but at the end of the day, you put in the effort,
you tend to like kind of come out with your enough results
to you kind of get a PhD.
In the startup space, like, you know,
like you could talk to 50 investors
and they just don't see your vision
and it doesn't matter how hard you kind of tried and pitched.
You could work incredibly hard
and you have a manufacturing defect.
And if you don't fix it, you're out of business.
You need to raise money by a certain date.
And there's a, you got to have this milestone
in order to like have a good pitch and you do it.
You have to have this talent
and you just don't have it inside the company.
Or, you know, you have to get 200 people
or however many people kind of like along with you
and kind of buy in the journey.
You're like disagreeing with an investor
and they're your investor.
So it's just like, you know,
it's like, there's no walking away from it, right?
So, and it tends to be like those things
where you just kind of get clobbered
in so many different ways
that like things end up being harder than you expect.
And it's like such a gauntlet,
but you learn so much in the process.
And there's a lot of people
that actually end up rooting for you
and helping you like from the outside
and you get good, great mentors
and you like get find fantastic people
that step up in the company.
And you have this like magical period
where everybody's like,
it's life or death for the company,
but like you're all fighting for the same thing
and it's the most satisfying kind of journey ever.
The things that make it easier
and that I would recommend
is like be really, really thoughtful about the application.
Like there's a saying of like,
kind of, you know, team and execution and market
and like kind of how important are each of those.
And oftentimes the market wins
and you come at it thinking that if you're smart enough
and you work hard enough
and you're like have the right talent to team and so forth,
like you'll always kind of find a way through.
And it's surprising how much dynamics
are driven by the industry you're in
and the timing of you entering that industry.
And so just Waymo is a great example of it.
There is, I don't know if there'll ever be another company
or suite of companies that has raised
and continues to spend so much money
at such an early phase of revenue generation
and productization, you know, from a P&L standpoint.
Like it's an anomaly,
like by any measure of any industry that's ever existed,
except for maybe the US space program, right?
But it's like a multiple trillion dollar opportunities,
which is so unusual to find that size of a market
that just the progress that shows the de-risking of it,
you could apply whatever discounts you want
off of that trillion dollar market
and it still justifies the investment that is happening
because like being successful in that space
makes all the investments feel trivial.
Now, by the same consequence, like the size of the market,
the size of the target audience,
the ability to capture that market share,
how hard that's gonna be, who the accumbents,
like that's probably one of the lessons I appreciate
like more than anything else,
where like those things really, really do matter.
And oftentimes can dominate the quality
of the team or execution,
because if you miss the timing
or you do it in the wrong space,
or you run into like the institutional kind of headwinds
of a particular environment,
like let's say you have the greatest idea in the world,
but you barrel into healthcare,
but it takes 10 years to innovate in healthcare
because of a lot of challenges, right?
Like there's fundamental laws of physics
that you have to think about.
And so the combination of like Anki and Waymo
kind of drives that point home for me,
where you can do a ton if you have the right market,
the right opportunity, the right way to explain it,
and you show the progress in the right sequence,
it actually can really significantly change
the course of your journey and startup.
- How much of it is understanding the market
and how much of it is creating a new market?
So how do you think about,
like the space of robotics is really interesting.
You said exactly right,
the space of applications is small,
relative to the cost involved.
So how much is like truly revolutionary thinking
about like what is the application?
And then, yeah, but so like creating something that-
- Didn't exist.
- Didn't really exist.
Like, this is pretty obvious to me,
the whole space of home robotics,
just everything that Cosmo did,
I guess you could talk to it as a toy
and people will understand it,
but Cosmo is much more than a toy.
And I don't think people fully understand the value of that.
You have to create it and the product will communicate it.
Like just like the iPhone,
nobody understood the value of no keyboard
and a thing that can do web browsing.
I don't think they understood the value of that
until you create it.
- Yeah, having a foot in the door
and an entry point still helps
because at the end of the day,
like an iPhone replaced your phone.
And so it had a fundamental purpose
and it has all these things that it did better, right?
And so then you could do ABC on top of it.
And then like, you even remember the early commercials
where it's always like one application of what it could do
and then you get a phone call.
And so that was intentionally sending a message,
something familiar, but then like,
you can send a text message, you can listen to music,
you can surf the web, right?
And so, autonomous driving obviously anchors on that as well.
You don't have to explain to somebody
the functionality of an autonomous truck, right?
Like there's nuances around it,
but the functionality makes sense.
In the home, you have a fundamental advantage.
Like we always thought about this
because it was so painful to explain to people
what our products did
and how to communicate that super cleanly,
especially when something was so experiential.
And so you compare like Anki to Nest.
Nest had some beautiful products
where they started scaling
and like actually found like really great success.
And they had like really clean
and beautiful marketing messaging
because they anchored on reinventing existing categories
where it was a smart thermostat, right?
And like, and so you kind of are able
to take what's familiar, anchor that understanding,
and then explain what's better about it.
- That's funny, you're right.
Cosmo is like totally new thing.
Like what is this thing?
- It's we struggle.
We spent like a lot of money on marketing.
We had a hard, like we actually had far greater efficiency
on Cosmo than anything else
'cause we found a way to capture the emotion
in some little shorts to kind of wean
into the personality in our marketing.
And it became viral where like we had these kind of videos
that would like go and get like hundreds
of thousands of views and like kind of like get spread
and sometimes millions of views.
And so, but it was like really, really hard.
And so finding a way to kind of like anchor
on something that's familiar
but then grow into something that's not is an advantage.
But then again, like you don't have
like their successes otherwise
like Alexa never had a comp, right?
You could argue that that's very novel and very new.
And there's a lot of other examples that kind of created
kind of a category out of like Kiva Systems.
I mean, they like came in and they like,
enterprise is a little easier because if you can,
it's less susceptible to this
§24Transcript · 3:06:53–3:14:07
because if you can argue a clear value proposition
it's a more logical conversation
that you can have with customers.
It's not, it's a little bit less emotional
and kind of subjective, but.
- Yeah, in the home you have to.
- Yeah, it's like a home robot.
It's like, what does that mean?
And so then you really have to be crisp
about the value proposition
and what like really makes it worth it.
Like, and we, by the way, went to that same order.
We almost like, we almost hit a wall coming out of 2013
where we were so big on explaining
why our stuff was so high tech
and all the kind of like great technology in it
and how cool it is and so forth
to having to make a super hard pivot on why is it fun
and why does the random kind of family of four need this.
Right, like, so it's learnings, but that's the challenge.
And I think like robotics tends to sometimes fall
into the new category problem,
but then you gotta be really crisp
about why it needs to exist.
- Well, I think some of robotics,
depending on the category,
depending on the application
is a little bit of a marketing challenge.
And I don't mean, I mean,
that's the kind of marketing that Waymo's doing,
that Tesla is doing,
is like showing off incredible engineering,
incredible technology, but convincing,
like you said, a family of four,
that this is transformative for your life.
This is fun.
- They don't care how much tech is in your thing.
- They don't, they really don't care.
- It's like, they need to know why they want it, so.
- And some of that is just marketing.
- Yeah, and that's why like Roomba,
like, yes, they didn't, you know,
like go and have this like, you know,
huge, huge ramp into like the entirety
of like kind of AI robotics and so forth.
But like, they built a really great business
in the vacuum cleaner world.
And like, everybody understands what a vacuum cleaner is.
Most people are annoyed by doing it.
And now you have one that like kind of does it itself,
the various degrees of quality,
but that is so compelling that like,
it's easy to understand.
And like, and they had a very kind of,
and I think they have like 15% of the vacuum cleaner market.
So it's like pretty successful, right?
- I think we need more of those types
of thoughtful stepping stones in robotics,
but the opportunities are becoming bigger
because hardware is cheaper,
computes cheaper, clouds cheaper, and AI is better.
So there's a lot of opportunity.
- If we zoom out from specifically startups and robotics,
what advice do you have to high school students,
college students about career and living a life
that you'd be proud of?
You lived one heck of a life.
You're very successful in several domains.
If you can convert that into a generalizable potion,
what advice would you give?
- Yeah, it's a very good question.
So it's very hard to go into a space
that you're not passionate about
and push hard enough to be,
you know, to like maximize your potential in it.
And so there's always kind of like the saying of like,
okay, follow your passion, great.
Try to find the overlap of where your passion overlaps
with like a growing opportunity and need in the world,
where it's not too different than the startup
kind of argument that we talked about,
where if you are-
- Where your passion meets the market.
- Right, you know what I mean?
Like, 'cause it's like,
that's a beautiful thing where like,
you can do what you love,
but it's also just opens up tons of opportunities
'cause the world's ready for it, right?
Like, and so like, if you're interested in technology,
that might point to like, go and study machine learning,
because you don't have to decide
what career you're gonna go into,
but it's gonna be such a versatile space
that's gonna be at the root of like everything
that's gonna be in front of us,
that you can have eight different careers
in different industries and be an absolute expert
in this like kind of tool set that you wield
that can go and be applied.
And that doesn't apply to just technology, right?
It could be the exact same thing if you wanna,
you know, same thought process applies to design,
to marketing, to, you know, to sales, to anything,
but that versatility where you like,
when you're in a space that's gonna continue to grow,
it's just like, what company do you join?
One that just is gonna grow
and the growth creates opportunities
where the surface area is just gonna increase
and the problems will never get stale.
And you can have, you know, many like,
and so you go into a career where you have that sort of
growth in the world that you're in,
you end up having so much more opportunity
that organically just appears,
and you can then have more shots on goal
to find like that killer overlap of timing and passion
and skill set and point in life where you can like,
you know, just really be motivated
and fall in love with something.
And then at the same time, like find a balance.
Like there's been times in my life
where I worked like a little bit too obsessively
and, you know, and crazy.
And I, you know, think we kind of like tried to correct it,
you know, kind of the right opportunities,
but, you know, I think I probably appreciate a lot more now
friendships to go way back, you know,
family and things like that.
And I kind of have the personality where I could use,
like I have like so much desire to really try to optimize,
like, you know, what I'm working on
that I can easily go to kind of an extreme.
And now I'm trying to like kind of find that balance
and make sure that I have the friendships, the family,
like relationship with the kids, everything that like,
I don't, I push really, really hard,
but it kind of find a balance.
And I think people can be happy on actually many kind of
extremes on that spectrum,
but it's easy to kind of inadvertently make a choice
by how you approach it,
that then becomes really hard to unwind.
And so being very thoughtful about
kind of all of those dimensions makes a lot of sense.
And so, I mean, those are all interrelated,
but at the end of the day-
- Love, passion and love.
Love towards, you said-
- Yeah, family, friends.
- Family.
And hopefully one day, if your work pans out, Boris,
is love towards robots.
- Love towards robots.
Not the creepy kind, the good kind.
- The good kind.
Just friendship and fun.
- Yeah, it's like another dimension
to just how we interface with the world.
Yeah.
- Boris, you're one of my favorite human beings, roboticist.
You've created some incredible robots
and I think inspired countless people.
And like I said, I hope Cosmo,
I hope your work with Anki lives on.
And I can't wait to see what you do with Waymo.
I mean, if we're talking about
artificial intelligence technology,
there's the potential to revolutionize
so much of our world.
That's it right there.
So thank you so much for the work you've done
and thank you for spending your valuable time
talking with me.
- Thanks, Alex.
- Thanks for listening to this conversation
with Boris Sofman.
To support this podcast,
please check out our sponsors in the description.
And now let me leave you with some words from Isaac Asimov.
If you were to insist I was a robot,
you might not consider me capable of love
in some mystic human sense.
Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.
(upbeat music)
(upbeat music)