Hey everyone, welcome to today's episode with Cade Mats. Cade's been a technology reporter for over 30 years and he's currently at the New York Times. He released a fantastic book last year on the history and the story of AI and how I came to be. I hope you enjoy it, chat. If you do, please hit subscribe. It really helps the channel if you could do that. Thank you for watching.
You spent the first few years of your career as a playwright before switching over to tech journalism. What inspired that switch? Well, it wasn't necessarily a switch. I've always had this dual interest, a dual background. I was an English major in college. My senior thesis was a novella, but my father was an engineer. During college, I had an internship at IBM. He was a career IBMer. My father a programmer. Through him, I had a scholarship and part of the scholarship was a summer internship as a programmer.
In college, I took programming courses as well and math and science courses. I always had this dual interest. I had a particular interest in writing about engineers. I felt like engineers and researchers were underrepresented, even in tech journalism. Tech stories in the mainstream press are typically about the entrepreneurs, the people building the companies as opposed to people really building the technology. I always felt like that was unexplored territory or underrepresented territory. I always had an interest in writing about not just the technology, but the people really building the technology.
The first thing that comes to mind is Steve Wozniak in the whole Apple story. You must have been thinking about him a bit then as opposed to the guy who has really talked about Steve Jobs. That's a good example. I always felt like engineers were as interesting as anybody else. The trope, the assumption is that engineers are somehow boring and uninteresting, but I think the opposite is true. My father, like I said, was an engineer in a career IBM or IBM. He had these amazing stories about the people that he worked with.
He worked on, among other things, the UPC projects at IBM, so the universal product code, the bar code that is now on all our groceries. This is how we buy our groceries. He worked on that original project. He helped test the system. He had these incredible stories, not only about the people who built the system and first trained it up, but got him Joe Woodland, first envisioned this technology when he was on the beach back in the 50s. Also about how the technology affected people as it was pushed out into the world.
In the early 70s, as they began testing and deploying the system, there were literally protests against IBM and the system. People who saw it as the sign of the beast from revelations come to life. Why would you push this out into the world? Those types of stories, they were entertaining. They were amusing, but they also shown a light on the way technology can affect people and hit certain parts of their psyche in ways you might not expect. I've always been interested in exploring those types of things.
Speaking of IBM, one thing I wanted to ask you was about, I saw online, which said that you reported on your reporting drawing in the 1997 match between IBM's Deep Blue and Gary Kasproff. Can you tell me a little bit about that time and the level of excitement and what it felt like to be in reporting on that? Right. I was in New York at the time and that event was put together in the city.
It was a remarkable event, in part because of the attention that was on it, in part because of the way it played out. How surprised Kasproff was by the machine that he was playing. That's what was most interesting is that it caught him, let alone everyone else, by surprise. It was interesting years later when I covered the Go match between AlphaGo, the system built by DeepMind, the AR Lab in London that had been purchased by Google, and Lee Cedal, who was one of the best Go players of the last decade. That played out in a similar way, but just on an even larger scale.
It was, it helped that I was able to contrast and compare that with what had happened years earlier in New York with Deep Blue and Gary Kasproff. I know the level of access you had at the AlphaGo match where you know you at the venue. Were you at the venue during the IBM match against Kasproff or were you kind of reporting on the news you heard? Well, why are you exactly? I was at the venue as well. It was in a hotel on the west side of Manhattan.
之所以帮助我,是因为我能够将这一点与几年前在纽约与 Deep Blue 和 Gary Kasproff 的比赛相比较。我知道你在 AlphaGo 比赛中拥有的接触水平,在比赛现场。你是否在 IBM 对战 Kasproff 的比赛现场,还是你在报道你听到的新闻?呃,你到底是怎么样的呢?我也在现场。比赛是在曼哈顿西区的一家酒店举行的。
It was, you know, I remember you had sort of stadium seating for a large TV or movie screen that would show the match and you had commentators, chess experts. We provided commentary in real time as if it was sporting the bit. But, though I was there for every match back then, and again, it was nice to compare and contrast that with what happened years later in Seoul with AlphaGo and Lee Seedol.
Yes, so we'll come on to AlphaGo in a minute. I've got a few questions about that. But you're at the New York Times at the moment.
好的,那么我们马上就要谈谈AlphaGo了。我有几个关于它的问题。但是现在你在纽约时报工作。
After staying with, you know, PC Magazine for a number of years, what was some kind of highlights during their 15 or so years you were there? Did any specific inventions come out or were there any kind of moments that made you kind of stand out as being the most exciting during your career?
Well, I think that the cast broth match was certainly one of those moments. You know, beyond that, nothing really, really compared to what would happen in later years with the type of technology we're going to talk about here, meaning AI technology, nothing happened for years and years.
During that period, it was sort of the late 90s, early 2000s. It was what people often called an AI winter. There wasn't the interest or the funding going into the field that you would see in later years.
The field really, really changed in the late 2000s, early 2010s, right? There was an inflection point where the field really took off in some unexpected ways. And that's what is really been interesting.
I'm not sure where you were exactly at the time, but I know off to PC Magazine you worked at the register for a few years. I'm just thinking of one event, like the iPhone launched in 2007. Was that an interesting moment? Where were you working then just to kind of think about another event outside of the AI space?
Sure. I was at PC Magazine the time. I was at the event where Steve Jobs unveiled it. These are carefully designed and orchestrated press events. It's almost like a concert. It's at this place called the Rock Concert. It's called the Marconi Center in San Francisco.
They're carefully chosen songs playing as everyone is gathering and waiting for Steve Jobs to come on stage. His speech, while unforgettable, in hindsight, you realize just how carefully he's trying to pull the strings.
He comes out and says, I'm going to unveil three devices today. One's a camera of a camera while unforgettable, right? You know, in hindsight, you realize just how carefully, you know, he's trying to pull the strings, right?
He comes out and he says, I'm gonna unveil three devices today, right? One's a phone, you know, one's a camera and one's an internet connection device, right? And then the big reveal is, it's all one device, right? It's all, you know, and all the Apple Faithful are there.
You know, those are events are interesting as sort of, as a window into the way Steve Jobs would operate and kind of pull the strings on the general public and the Apple Faithful. But it's far less interesting to me than an event like the Go Match in Korea, because something is playing out there in real time, where no one quite knows what's going to happen.
你知道,那些事件非常有趣,就像一个窗口,可以让我们看到 Steve Jobs 是如何在大众和苹果粉丝中拉动其背后的线。但对我来说,它远不如在韩国进行的围棋比赛这样的事件有趣,因为在那里发生着一些实时的东西,没有人完全知道会发生什么。
And you see the technology affect people in unexpected ways. That's far more interesting to me.
而且你会看到技术以意想不到的方式影响人们。对我来说,这更有趣。
So after you're at the register, you move to Wired Magazine. Yeah, and good to talk about AlphaGo now, because I think you're at Wired when the AlphaGo challenge match happened.
And this is how I first kind of heard of you. I saw you on the documentary, this brilliant documentary I'd recommend everyone watches, you know, produced by DeepMind on the AlphaGo Match. So yeah, just to say a little bit more about it and I've said a bit already, but can you just talk a bit more about what that experience was like your week or so there was like and how it felt, excitement.
What I often tell people is that even though I was just an observer to this match, right, I was not a participant, I was an observer.
我常常告诉人们,尽管我只是这场比赛的观察者,而不是参与者,但我是个观察者。
It was one of the most amazing weeks of my life. The part of it was that the entire country, meaning Korea, South Korea was focused on this match. You would walk out of the streets and people would be gathered outside the four seasons.
So to watch these sort of giant television screens, showing the match, it was on the front page of every paper, every day. And as the match would sway back and forth, you know, towards AlphaGo or back towards Lee Sido, you could kind of feel the whole country sway in the same way.
When, certainly when Lee Sido lost the second match, you could feel his collective sadness across the country, right, he was a national hero. And it wasn't just about him losing, but I think we all sort of feel this pang when that sort of thing happens. You know, you relate to him because he's human, right?
And when he is beat by this machine, we all feel that sort of sadness. That was real and it was palpable. And then at the same time, when he came back and won game four, that sort of a relation we all could relate to.
And that was an relation that really reverberated across the whole country. Being there wasn't an amazing, amazing thing. And it was something that maybe people back in the UK or back in the US didn't feel as much, right?
Go as a national game in places like Korea and China and Japan in a way it isn't in the UK or in the US. So you really felt an importance being there in the country as that was playing out.
As you say, it was one of the most, you know, kind of interesting exciting weeks of your life. Did that take you by surprise a lot? Or did you go there thinking something, you know, very interesting is going to happen here?
Well, you know, I did make an effort to go, right? I knew that something was going to happen. It was going to make a good story. I remember pitching to my editor the story and him saying, well, most people assume that Lee Seedle is going to win, right? And I said, yes, but I think what you're going to see is that the machine is going to win this match.
I think what people, you know, go experts are not taking into account is that this system that DeepMond is building has continued to be improved over the month since it last played a match, right? It had beaten the European Go Champion behind closed doors previously. And from those matches, you can sort of, you know, ascertain the level that this system had achieved.
What people were not taking into account is that the, you know, part of the system literally learns from, from repeated play. And that sort of learning aspect of the system was what, you know, a lot of the experts were not, were not acknowledging as they tried to predict what would happen in Korea. I was confident that the machine was going to win.
And, you know, I didn't know it was going to win. But that's what I was expecting. And, you know, it played out in ways, certainly that didn't expect. Like I didn't expect the machine to be that dominant. And, you know, I didn't expect that twist at the end when, when Lee Cito, you know, took game four.
I remember, you know, after game three, when effectively, you know, the machine had won the match, right, in one three out of three out of, you know, five games. And my wife said, where are you coming home now? And I said, no, I'm going to stay and see how this plays out. You know, and luckily I did, I did stay because that was one of the most interesting moments when, when Lee Cito came back and won the fourth game.
Yeah, there is a lovely moment in the documentary where you, I think you say you're nearly about to tear up, recalling the moment, you know, where Lee comes back and wins. As you said, there was a shared interest at one point, you know, from, I guess you wanted them to at least get one match, even if you know, because that made all the difference, you know, for making them feel a bit better and stuff. I think he said, we're just winning one match was enough or something, they kind of consoled him a bit.
Oh, absolutely, right? This isn't, you know, this is about more than just, you know, the statistics of that match, right? It's, you know, it's about something more human than that, more important than that. And it's about this larger arc of AI machines and its relationship to us humans.
Are there any kind of interest in behind the scenes stories or insights, you know, conversations you had with I've a go experts or people at DeepMind? Yeah, a lot of this is in the piece I eventually published at Wired and in a book, you know, I later wrote about the history of neural networks, which is a key technology that's used in AlphaGo.
But, you know, the most amazing moment, and the most amazing character, you know, as far as I was concerned, you know, who was involved in that match was a kind of fun way. And he was the European Go champion who had lost the match to AlphaGo behind closed doors. And, you know, he's not a native English speaker.
But, you know, I ran into him or talked to him in the wake of AlphaGo winning game too, right? Which was sort of the real, like sort of devastating moment for a lot of people. And, you know, he had this wonderfully poetic way of describing the system and the way it played, and the beauty of this system, which had, you know, made this sort of this transcendent move to effectively win that match, a move that David Silver, one of the deep-mind engineers later told me, was a move that a human most likely would never have made, right, according to this machine's calculations, which are based on real games involving human players.
Its calculation was that a human, the chances of human making that move, an expert player were one in 10,000. But, based on the machines, the machine had, based on the games, the machine had effectively played with itself, it decided to make that move anyway. And, the way that Fawnway described that move in the moment was remarkable. He's a neat guy who shows up in that documentary and you talked about as well, and one of the important characters in that piece. It's a great movie.
I was surprised at how effective that documentary was. Yeah, really is a beautiful piece. What was it like for watching the documentary back, seeing yourself in it, seeing the images for when you were there?
Well, I thought it did a great job of capturing what it was like to be there. From the small moments with people like Fawnway, to the larger scope of things, and how this whole country reacted to the event, it really captured what it was like to be there.
Did much change in your perspective of AI technology and the future from being that event? I mean, you said that you predicted that the machine would most likely win. So after it had finished, did you think much differently about the future AI, or had you kind of expected that to happen? And it was obviously an amazing experience, but nothing had changed much in your minds.
Well, I mean, I think it was an important moment because a game like that is something we can all understand, we grow up playing games. And when you have a moment like that, when a machine can beat one of the world's top players at a game like that, it's a way that everyone can understand how the technology is progressing.
And because of that phenomenon, that aspect of the system that learns from repeated play, you can see this technology continuing to advance. Like I said, it's based on a technology called a neural network, which is a mathematical system that literally learns tasks by analyzing data. So that might be analyzing go moves from expert players, or it might be images or sounds, right?
A neural network is what allows Siri to understand the words that we say. It analyzes thousands of hours of spoken words, that learns to recognize the words that we speak. You can feed it, feed a neural network thousands of cat photos and it can learn to identify the patterns that allow it to identify a cat.
And you could see a path where this technology could continue to improve certain computer skills, right? So image recognition, speech recognition, translation, that was the next area where this technology really, really improved things. And we continue to see this basic technology improve what scientists call natural language understanding, the ability to understand the languages that you and I and others on our speak, and responding to that.
So you're seeing systems now that use this same fundamental technology to apply that phenomenon to all sorts of other natural language skills, whether it's question and answer or dialogue, right? You know, we're seeing increasingly, you know, systems that can, you know, move towards carrying on a conversation. We're not there yet, but you can, at the time, you could see the progress in these areas continuing.
And you know, it's something that I moved to the times that I pitched to my editors, right? This idea would continue to show progress in the years to come.
你知道的,这是我向编辑们推荐的时代的一个观点。这个想法将在未来的几年中继续显示进展。
Since that, since the AlphaGo challenge match, we've had some interesting things happen with all the technologies you've just discussed, you know, we had deep-mind with AlphaFold and OpenAI, you know, with a few things, GPT-3 and Dali-2. Can you envision and picture what you think may be maybe the next moment, this is exciting as, you know, for example, the AlphaGo match, is there anything that you think may kind of stand out as a next big milestone that you're excited to see?
Well, I think, you know, at this point, we need to look beyond the games and look beyond the interesting demos towards where this might really change things in real ways. AlphaFold is a good example, right? That technology, again, based on a neural network, fundamentally, you know, change biological research. And, you know, it may help scientists, for instance, when it comes to drug discovery, right? Developing new vaccines and medicines.
And, you know, when you think about what OpenAI has done with these, what they call large language models. So, you know, neural networks that can understand language in the way that I described earlier. We need to, you know, really think about where that can be of use. And we're starting to see it be of use in certain ways.
Like that sort of technology has now been deployed with software developer, right? It can, it can, in a way, generate pieces of software code that developers can then make use of, right? It's not perfect, right? It can't generate software code to the point where it can replace all coders, but it can help software developers do their job. Generate snippets of code that they can then use and shape and insert into their projects. And that's where it's starting to be useful.
The next area on the horizon are what, what's, researchers call multi-modal systems. So, it's basically the same sort of model. These sort of large language models also applied to images. So, you have this system produced by OpenAI Presses called Dali. And what you can do is you can ask it to give you a photograph. An image, you can describe the image you want. You can say, I want an image of two cats playing chess and it will generate that image with photorealistic quality.
It's a remarkable system in a lot of ways. Surprising, entertaining. So, then the question becomes, how is this gonna impact our world in real ways? And that is sort of an open question. But, you know, much as these large language models can help developers build software code, something like Dali can help graphic designers as they're building images, right? You can have the system generate an image that you can then tweak and modify and insert into the work you're doing.
That's not the sort of, you know, super intelligent system that a lot of AI researchers have long dreamed of and long claim was on the horizon. These are systems that are best used in tandem with humans. But that's the sort of thing that that time been looking at and thinking about.
That's interesting. So, we get to move on now to talk about the books that you released in the last year, which I've read and there's really brilliant, really interesting, titled Genius Makers, the Mavericks who brought AI to Google, Facebook and the world.
So, in first of all, yeah, why did you decide to write this book on this topic?
首先啊,你为什么决定写这本书呢?
Well, I decided to write it after coming back from Korea and that go match. That event where you could see how the technology was affecting people in real time. And you could see the interesting characters behind the technology, Dimas Asabas, the CEO and founder of DeepMind, being one prime example. That's when I resolved to write the book.
But as I started to pull together a pitch, to make, to publishers, I became even more interested with a guy named Jeff Hinton, who had worked on that idea, the idea of a neural network, since the early 70s. He embraced this idea at a moment when most people thought it would never work. And as I talked to him more and got to know him, the book, and it's focused shifted a lot. He became the central character, like the one human thread, you know, through the history of this idea, the idea of a neural network. And that really became the heart of the book, right? Any good book, any good story, is about people. And he became the central person in this book.
I mean, just a bit intrigued about the process I've read in that book. So, how much of the stories in the book were, did you experience first-hand, did you speak much to these main characters in the book and about these stories in Catcher From Them, or was it stuff you'd found from research? How did you go about finding out all the content in the book?
It's based on dozens and dozens and dozens of interviews. Almost everyone who is mentioned in the book, I spoke to, you know, I mean, there are a few exceptions, but I spoke to almost everyone. And, you know, a lot of those stories were revealed for the first time in the book, or through my own reporting.
You know, a couple of the big moments, you know, I had written about before, whether it's the Go-Match or a couple of other events. But most of that is original research. You know, I do go back in time, right? This is an old idea. The idea of a neural network was first proposed in the 50s. And so there's some historical research there.
Another interesting character is a guy named Frank Rosenblatt, who was a psychologist in the 1950s, and someone who really championed this idea then. He died in the early 70s. So there's some historical research involved. But a lot of that also is firsthand, right? Through people like Jeff Hedden, who have worked in this area since the 70s, people like Jan LeCoon, who is now the head of research at Metta, formerly Facebook, and other people who have long worked on this idea.
You must have learned a huge amount of AI whilst writing the book. Were there any or many big questions or ideas that you've noticed you've changed your mind on that you wouldn't have thought previously before you read the book and I know what you did?
Well, I think one thing that's that has been interesting and I continue to think about is, and I don't think this is widely understood among the general public. AI is an aspirational field, right? In the 1950s, when that term was coined, artificial intelligence, it was coined by this kind of John McCarthy, he was a Dartmouth College professor. He had, he pulled together this summer conference at Dartmouth in 1956, and brought together light-minded people who were interested in this new field. He decided to call it artificial intelligence.
And these academics were sure that it wouldn't take long for them to create machines that could do what the human brain could do. Some predicted that within 10 years you would have a system that could beat the world's best players at chess or that could develop its own mathematical theorem. Well, you know, that didn't happen. You know, the chess piece didn't happen until 1997, as we discussed.
You know, artificial intelligence from the beginning was a misnomer, right? There were building technology that was nowhere close to intelligent. But they were sure that they could do this. And that's a theme throughout the history of AI and that you continue to see, right? It's very much an aspirational field. And I think that that's something that people outside of the field don't quite understand.
Is that the kind of main reason you're so interested in AI, that it's just this really aspirational field that you're trying to solve such difficult issues? Is that the reason you're particularly interested in that as opposed to, you know, all the other areas of technology?
I think that that's part of it. But part of what I want to do with the book or with my report at the time is is give people a realistic view of this, right? Because it's so aspirational, people often, people in the field, often talk about the technology in ways that exaggerate its powers. And I think part of my role is to give people a real view of what's going on here and show them exactly what the technology can do and what it can't. And explain this aspirational nature and help them understand that what some people are saying isn't necessarily true.
One thing I've seen you say is that a lot of the visionaries in the field they continued going going with this when everyone else didn't believe in them. They believed in AI, everyone thought they were crazy but they continued. You've spoke to some of these people, maybe all of these people that I'm thinking of. What do you think it is about them that you think enabled them to have this belief and to pursue it in the face of doubt?
I admire that quality in anyone, right? Having a firm belief in what you're doing and sticking with it, even in the face of doubts from others, right? That's an abdiment quality and it's a quality that's at the heart of so many great stories. And it's a quality you see in Jeff Hinton, in particular. He believes very strongly what he believes and he's willing to pursue that. At the same time, he, like maybe some others, is grounded in a way and he sees the limits of the current technology and he's willing to talk about the limits. But he is also very firm in his beliefs and he's willing to talk about that. It's an abdiment quality and it's absolutely something that's tracked in me.
That's always pretty much booked together. So you're just moving on to some final questions. I kind of want to return to your career a bit more broadly, a bit more general. I mean, you beat a tech journalist for a number of years. What's your enjoy about the work that you do?
Really it's about talking to people, right? That's the most interesting thing. That's really how the job works. You talk to one person and you get through the end of a good conversation and you say, who else should I talk to? They recommend a few people you talk to them and the cycle continues.
That's really what's most interesting. It's talking to and getting to know and getting to understand new people. And then helping others do the same, right? Taking what you have learned, taking these conversations you've had and turning them into a story or a book that others can appreciate.
It feels like with all the technology work and reporting that you do, there are always technology stories that are deeply intertwined with people as opposed to just technology on its own. I guess that's the thing that you find most interesting.
Well, absolutely. I think that technology itself is certainly interesting. But it's even more interesting when you think about how this affects us all. And so, again, I think that not all technology writing does this, but it should. It should look at the intersection of technology and people in society. That is where the technology becomes most important.
Are there any aspects of being a journalist that stand out particularly difficult or the most challenging part of the job?
作为一名记者,有哪些方面是特别困难或最具挑战性的部分?
Well, I mean, that piece, I mean, these are complicated issues, complicated in a lot of ways, right? Technically complicated, the ramifications of the technology are complicated. And you have to take in all that complication and then find a way to distill it into something that anyone and everyone can understand. That's always hard.
And you have to continue to struggle to do that. Because, again, ultimately, it's about imparting this knowledge to anyone. So it's a hard thing to do to distill that down into its essence into something that anyone can grasp and enjoy. But that's the job. I think you suddenly did that in the book, so that's for sure.
And I've seen you make the point a few times as well that one thing you really try and do is remain objective in your reporting and not to take sides and give your opinion too much. Is that difficult or is this the kind of way you enjoy working? Do you ever wish you could give a bit more of your opinion and your take on things or?
It is the way that my mind works. And it's the way I really want to approach things. It's one of the reasons I'm at the times. Because the way I work aligns with the organization. And I think that that's really what's most effective. And I think that's one of the reasons the book is effective. Because it doesn't take anyone's side. It looks at the entire landscape. And it's the way that everyone, all the information they need to understand what is truly going on and they can make their own decisions.
After spending so many years reporting and thinking and writing about technology, how do you feel about the future and where we're headed?
在花费了这么多年的时间来报道、思考和写作科技方面,您对未来和我们的发展方向有何感受?
Well, there are some dark parts to our future. I'll tell you that. And a lot of them relate to AI. We haven't talked much about this. These large language models and these multi-modal systems we talked about. They're essentially generating fake content. They're generating their own images. They're generating texts. They're generating tweets, blog posts.
We're going to reach a point where it's going to be hard to tell whether texts or images or sounds were created by a human or they were created by a machine. We are going to have to have a skepticism about everything that we see and hear online. And I wonder if we're as humans capable of that sort of skepticism. I think it's going to be a real shift.
Do you have any plans for the future with your work and anything exciting coming up?
你们有没有未来的工作计划,有没有什么令人兴奋的事情即将发生?
Well, I'm going to continue to cover this. This area at the time, and all sorts of areas. I'm what they call the emerging technologies reporter. So any technology that has been beginning to come to the fore is a potential subject for my stories. Maybe another book at some point. Nothing eminent yet, but I'd like to do another.