Lex Fridman Podcast - #241 – Boris Sofman: Waymo, Cozmo, Self-Driving Cars, and the Future of Robotics

Episode Date: November 17, 2021

Boris Sofman is the Senior Director Of Engineering and Head of Trucking at Waymo, formerly the Google Self-Driving Car project. He was also the CEO and co-founder of Anki, a home robotics company. Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors: - LMNT: https://drinkLMNT.com/lex to get free sample pack - Athletic Greens: https://athleticgreens.com/lex and use code LEX to get 1 month of fish oil - ROKA: https://roka.com/ and use code LEX to get 20% off your first order - Indeed: https://indeed.com/lex to get $75 credit - BetterHelp: https://betterhelp.com/lex to get 10% off EPISODE LINKS: Boris's Twitter: https://twitter.com/bsofman Boris's LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/bsofman Waymo's Twitter: https://twitter.com/waymo Waymo's YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/waymo Waymo's Website: https://waymo.com/ PODCAST INFO: Podcast website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8 RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/ YouTube Full Episodes: https://youtube.com/lexfridman YouTube Clips: https://youtube.com/lexclips SUPPORT & CONNECT: - Check out the sponsors above, it's the best way to support this podcast - Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/lexfridman - Twitter: https://twitter.com/lexfridman - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lexfridman - LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lexfridman - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lexfridman - Medium: https://medium.com/@lexfridman OUTLINE: Here's the timestamps for the episode. On some podcast players you should be able to click the timestamp to jump to that time. (00:00) - Introduction (07:32) - Robots in science fiction (13:13) - Cozmo (38:28) - AI companions (45:23) - Anki (1:10:56) - Waymo Via (1:42:34) - Sensor suites for long haul trucking (1:52:30) - Machine learning (2:10:26) - Waymo vs Tesla (2:21:02) - Safety and risk management (2:30:06) - Societal effects of automation (2:41:11) - Amazon Astro (2:45:35) - Challenges of the robotics industry (2:50:03) - Humanoid robotics (2:57:06) - Advice for getting a PhD in robotics (3:04:37) - Advice for robotics startups (3:15:43) - Advice for students

The following is a conversation with Boris Safman, 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 he did. At 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 Visselli recently on episode 237 about the human side of trucking. This episode looks more at the robotic side. And now a quick few second mention of each sponsor. Check them out in the description. It's the best way to support this podcast. First is element. My go-to electrolyte drink mix. Second is a thud of greens. The only one you Trish and Drink I drink twice a day. Third is Roca. My favorite sunglasses and prescription glasses. Fourth is indeed a hiring website. Fifth is Better help, an online therapy service. So the choice is health,

style, having a great team, or an impenetrable mental fortitude. Choose wise than my friends. And now onto the full ad reads. As always, no ads in the middle. I try to make this interesting, but if you skip them, please still check out the sponsors. I enjoy their stuff. Maybe you will too. This episode is brought to you by Element. Electroliked, drink, mix, spelled, LMNT. To do low carbs dies correctly, I think. The number one thing you have to get right is electrolytes,

specifically sodium, potassium, and magnesium. And that's exactly what element gets right. In fact, I was listening into an Andrew Huberman live on Instagram yesterday. I highly recommend his Instagram, by the way. It's so educational, so fascinating. But he mentioned that he loves element as well. And they're actually not a sponsor of his podcast. And several times I've hung out with him. He is lying. Element is always part of the picture. It's always there. And the several times I've hung out with him, he is lying. Element is always part of the picture. It's always there. And he's always kind of enjoying that drink. And I do too. It's a big part of my day. Anyway,

they have a new flavor. My new favorite is watermelon salt is delicious. It's good for you. I mean, it's great. Olympians use it. Tech people use it. I swear by the stuff, try it at drinklment.com slash Lex. That's drinkelement.com slash Lex. This show is also brought to you by Athletic Greens, and it's newly renamed AG1 Drink, which is an all-in-one daily drink to support better health and peak performance. It replaced the multivitamin for me, and when far beyond that was 75 vitamins and minerals. It's the first thing I drink every day,

and then like I said, I drink it twice later on of the day, it always just makes me feel better about taking on the day, making sure that I have that nutritional base with the low carbs, with the fasting, with the occasional crazy workouts, all of that, I got my nutrition covered. Plus, it tastes great. I mean, it's just amazing when there's so much great science that goes into iterative development of a one-stop solution for vitamins and minerals.

Anyway, they'll give you one month's supply of fish oil when you sign up to Athletic Greens.com slash Lex. That's the other thing I take as fish oil. That's Athletic Greens.com slash Lex. This show is also brought to you by Roka, the makers of glasses and sunglasses that I love wearing for their design, their feel, and innovation

on material optics and grip. Roka was started by two American swimmers from Stanford and was born out of an obsession with performance. Anyway, I met one of those co-founders, Rob. He's an incredible human being. I got a chance to spend some time at Roka here in Austin, Just a lot of great engineering, a lot of great design going on there. Roca is designed to be active in. It's extremely lightweight. The grip is comfortable, but strong and the style is classy. I love their minimalist style.

So it holds up to all conditions, including in the extreme Austin heat or the cool, Boston late fall. Let's see how the winter holds up. Check them out for both prescription glasses and sunglasses at roka.com and enter code Lex. The safe 20% off on your first order. That's roka.com and enter code Lex. This show is also brought to you by indeed,

a hiring website. I've used them as part of many hiring efforts have done for the teams of lead. They have tools like Indeed Instant Match, giving you quality candidates who's resumes and indeed figure job description immediately. I've been going through a process of hiring folks for the team that's in charge of creating cool videos and podcasts and all that kind of stuff. It's fascinating and I think it's essential to hire, to build the team of brilliant creative minds

in order to do this kind of thing well. And so you have to use the best tools to the job. Indeed, it's one such tool. Right now, you can get a free $75 sponsored job credit to upgrade your job post at indeed.com slash Lex. Get it at indeed.com slash Lex. Offer is valid through December 31st 2021 terms and conditions apply. That one's for the lawyers. Go to indeed.com slash Lex. This episode is also sponsored by BetterHelp spelled H-E-L-P-HELP. Like you would be spelling out on the sand if you were stuck in a deserted island with a volleyball and a bloody handprint on that volleyball. Anyway, BetterHelp. Help you figure out what you need

and match with the licensed professional therapist in under 48 hours. I've wanted to be a psychotherapist, a psychiatrist, when I was younger. Talk therapy has always been a thing that fascinated me. In some ways, that's why I love podcasts. I love listening to podcasts.

I love participating in podcasts. It's a way through conversation to explore the human mind. And so for you on a personal level, that's a great tool to use to explore your own mind. Better help us easy, private, affordable, available worldwide. Check them out at betterhelp.com slash Lex. That's betterhelp.com slash Lex. That's betterhelp.com slash Lex.

This is the Lex Friedman Podcast, and here is my conversation with Boris Softman. Who is your favorite robot in science fiction books or movies? Wally and R2D2 where they were able to convey such an incredible degree of intent, emotion, and character attachment without having any language whatsoever, and purely through the richness of emotional interaction. Those are fantastic. The Terminator series, just like really pretty wide range, but I kind of love this dynamic where you have this incredible Termator itself that Arnold played. But 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 L. DeZone. And so it was kind of interesting where you you realize how many how many levels there are on the spectrum from human to kind of potentials and AI and robotics to futures. And so yeah, that movie really as much as it was like kind of a Derek world in a way was actually quite fascinating. Get some imagination going. Well, from an engineering perspective, both the movies and mentioned Wally 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 that it's super expensive to build, but you can imagine, maybe not on a machine of war, but you can imagine terminated type robots walking around, and then the same obviously with wallies

You've basically so for people who don't know you created the company on key that created a small robot with a big Personality called Cosmo that just it does exactly what wallie 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 is very intentional to go really far away from human form when you think about a character like Cosmo or like Wally 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 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 very 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 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 closed 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 sitting in 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.

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 for a smile. I think like 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 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 sort 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, And so some of the best animators that we've worked with, they almost like study when they come up, you know, 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 love of motion.

And so in a lot of ways, you know, we thought about Cosmo, I was like, you're forced to kind of extract the deepest love of motion. And so in a lot of ways, when we thought about Cosmo, you're right. Like, 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 Wally, which we studied incredibly deeply, and in fact, some of our team were, you know of our team had worked previously at Pixar and on our project. They intentionally constrained Wally as well, even though in an animated film,

you could do whatever you wanted to because it forced you to 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 something that is just infinitely articulable. So if we backtrack a little bit and you thought of Cosmo in 2011 and 2013 actually designed

and built it, what is Anki? What is Cosmo? I guess who is Cosmo? And 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, machine learning, kind of different areas. One of my co-founders were kind of walking robots 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 in AI, where there's like a spectrum of those people that get 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 challenge. And that's necessary and there's a lot of incredible breakthroughs that happen there. We're probably close 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 kind of some experiences through previous jobs and internships where we got to see the applied side of robotics. And at that time, there was actually relatively few applications of robotics that were outside of pure research or industrial applications, military applications and so forth, there were very few outside of it.

So maybe I robot was like one exception and maybe there are 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, and Entertainment Space. You had these really rich experiences and 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 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 in the context that mattered to feel like like he was alive. And to be able to have these like emotional kind connections and experiences with people that you would typically only find inside of a movie. And the motivation very much was Pixar, like 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 like a, you know, when 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 like a different level of experiences when you're actually able to physically interact without robot. And then that was your idea with Anki. 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 not bringing into the physical space. The idea is really brilliant, which is you're basically bringing video games to life. Exactly. Exactly. 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 sort of things that you think of virtually, but then you can have it physically. And one of the things that we were like really surprised by that really stood out and immediately led us to really like kind of 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 we've, 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 it's much more forgiving, where you can make mistakes in a game.

It's okay if like, if, you know, cargo's off the track, or if, if Cosmo makes a mistake. And what's funny is actually we were so worried about that. In reality, we realize 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 when 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 back track It seems for a robot assist to take us jump in into the direction of fun is a brilliant move because when you have the freedom to explore to design all those kinds of things and

You can also build cheap robots like you don't have to, if you're not chasing perfection and like toys, it's understood you can go cheaper. Which means in robot, it's still expensive, but it's actually affordable by a large number of people. So it's a really brilliant space to explore. Yeah, that's right. And in fact, we realized pretty quickly

that like, perfection is actually not fun. Yeah. Because like in a traditional robotic, robotic sense, the first kind of path planner, and this is the part that I worked on out of the gate, was like a lot of the kind of AI systems where you have these vehicles and cars racing, kind of making optimal maneuvers to try to kind of get ahead. And you realize very quickly that like,

that's actually not fun because you want the like chaos from mistakes. And so you start to kind of intentionally almost add noise to the system in order to kind of create more of a realism in the exact same way the human player might start really ineffective and inefficient and then start to kind of 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 kind of 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, like your cost of goods had to be like, like well under $100. In a case of cosmology we got it under $50 and to end fully packaged and delivered.

And it was under $200 retail cost, the retail. Yeah. So, okay, if we sit down like at this 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? There's a lot of unique qualities to cause. 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 lifts stuff, but there's something about arm movement that adds even more kind of depth. It's like 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 kind of world. Exactly, so it's interesting because like, they all have cosmos 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 you're two wheels and you have sound and a screen and a low resolution screen. And with that it's actually pretty incredible where you can come up with where like you said

it's a really interesting give and take 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 it look like? What does it sound like? How does it communicate?

It's a formula that actually scales way beyond entertainment. This is the formula for human 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 have done anything in human robot interaction, really miss the marker 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 going to 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 experiences in there, you missed the mark. So who, like, how did you, through those conversations get the cost down so much and make it made it so simple. That 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 would never build something like Cosmo. And so where did that come from?

So this is publicity it came from this combination of a team that we had it was quite cool because like we in by the way You ask anybody that's like experienced in the light kind of you know Toy entertainment space you'll never sell product over $99 that was fundamentally false and we believed it to be false It was because experience had to kind of you know 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, one our head of mechanical engineering was one of the earliest heads of engineering at Logitech and has a billion units of consumer products and 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 a neighbor. 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 going to fix it in on the software side. Then we found on the design and character side there was a faction that was more of 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 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, I can't just pause on that because 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. But that's a fascinating discussion of, you're right. Ultimately, you cannot compete on the quality of the gaming experience. It's a very restrictive, the physical world is just too restrictive and you don't have a graphic engine. It's like all this. But on the character side, we, and clearly we

moved in that direction as like kind of the winning path. And we partnered up with this really, we immediately immediately went towards Pixar. And CarlisBena, he was one of, like, had been at Pixar for nine years. He'd worked on tons of the movies, including Wally and others. And just immediately kind of spoke the language and just clicked on how you think about that, like, kind of magic and drive.

And then we built that 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 where 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 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 parametrizing them where it wasn't just a fixed recording, but they were parametrized 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 Cosmo 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 Malone for two 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, you know, camera angles and so forth.

But that's not really a prominent source of interaction. What happens when 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 universally. 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 will 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, the most perfect, 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 know that you played, they were relatively simple, but they were always wants 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. So you said dogs. Well, listen, do we draw from cats who don't

seem to give a damn about you. Is that just another character? It's just another character and so you you can almost like in the early aspirations we thought 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 you know seven dwarves sort of and and initially we even thought that it would be amazing if like you know like their characters actually help them have strengths and weaknesses and some you know like whatever they

end up doing like summer scared summer you know arrogance some are you know super warm and like kind of friendly and in the end we focused on one because it made it very clear that we got to build out enough depth here because you're 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. 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 isn't that 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. the depth of the personality, the mistakes. So let me ask the movie her question. And how and so Cosmos seem 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 there will be friends with them

Will be interacting with them in different ways though in the way we I mean you don't think of it this way, but when you play video games They're kind 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 up like Billions it's not trillions of cosmos in the world. So if we look at that future There's several questions to ask how intelligent intelligent does that future cosmone need to be to create fulfilling relationships like friendships? Yeah, that's a great question.

And part of it was a recognition that it's going to take time to get there because it has to be a lot more intelligent because it was good enough to be a magical experience for a, you know, an eight-year-old, it's a higher bar to do that, be a like a pet in the home or to help with functional interface in an office environment or in a home or in so forth. And so any 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 know, 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 you know, 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 you

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 are 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. interaction in a way that is not acceptable for machines. And in general, there's a lot of ways to customize it, but it makes people who are skeptical of technology much more comfortable with it.

There were a couple of really, really prominent examples of this, so when we launched in Europe, and so we were in, I think I could dozen countries, if I remember correctly, but we went pretty aggressively in launching in Germany and France and UK. And we were very worried in Europe because there's obviously a really socially higher bar for privacy and security where you've heard about how many companies have had troubles on things that might have been okay in the US, but like 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 a journalist are like notoriously, like really, really tough on these sort 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, do we have any complaints beyond like a really casual kind of question. And it was because of the character where when it conversation came up, it was almost like, well, of course, he has to see in here. How else is he going to 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 approving 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's where a lot less concerned about privacy if the if the thing is value and charisma. That's true for all of human interaction. 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. So it's almost like you're communicating intent, and with that intent, people are kind of more understanding and calmer.

And it's interesting, it was just the earliest kind of version of starting an experiment with this, but it wasn't enabled. And then you have like completely different dimensions where kids with autism had like an incredible connection with Cosmo that just went beyond anything we'd ever seen. And we have like completely different dimensions where kids with autism had like an incredible connection with Cosmo They 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 are like there's an interesting dimension there that got unlocked. They just hadn't existed before that has these really interesting kind of

links into society and and a potential building block of future experiences. 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 to right. You know like a friend. How many years away from that do you think we are? What's your intuition? The question. So I think the idea of a different type of character like more closer to like kind of a pet style companionship will come way faster. And as a few reasons 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 value where it just becomes creepy and like, and not, not appealing. Because the closer you try to get to a human inform 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 a lot of video game characters like Sims for example does not have a voice when you when you think about it. It was 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 created dynamic range. So you can lean into these advantages much more and something that doesn't resemble human. So that will 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... Well, let me, 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. 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. But I also 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? Yeah, you're in a movie. There's a bunch of characters if you just understand what creates compelling characters And then you 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 is 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 that 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 in 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 I, 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 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 a sort of thing where some were to like how, 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, the three-way-get-stool if you will, between the hardware, the AI, and the character. That balance, I'm not aware of anywhere right now where that same kind of aggressive drive with the value on the character is Is happening and so to me just a prediction Exactly as you said something that looks awfully a lot like cosmol 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 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. And what's really confusing to me is they, they're born, these attempts, and they, 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, would 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 going to be different in another five years or 10 years or whatnot? Physical component cost will continue to come down in price. And mobile devices and computations going to become more and more prevalent, as well as cloud

as a big tool to offload cost. AI is going to be a massive transformation compared to what we dealt with, where everything from voice understanding to just a broader contextual understanding and mapping of semantics and understanding scenes and so forth. And then the character side will continue to progress as well because that magic does exist, it just exists in different forms. You have just the brilliance of the tapping and animation and these other areas where that was a big unlock in film obviously. I think the pieces can reconnect and the building box are actually going to be way more impressive than they were five years ago. So in 2019, Anki, the company that created a

Cosmol, 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 they made it like just so we're winding a tiny bit like what you know, would end up being really challenging about it as a business, where from a commercial standpoint and customer reception standpoint, there's a lot of things you could point to

that were pretty big successes. So millions of units got to pretty serious revenue, like close to 100 million annual revenue, number one product and various categories. But it was pretty expensive and it 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 reviews were 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 or kind of just your head kind of operations and everything's ahead of you. But we got to a point where if you will get the entire year, you have to operate your company, pay all, you know, 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 get paid in December, January by retailers. And those swings were pretty, were really rough and just made it like so difficult because the more it successfully became, the more wow those swings became because you'd have to like spend, you know, 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 it was a bigger dip and then you waiting for the wild for. 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 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 one billion revenue and hardware companies are getting valued at like one X 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 that's what you're valued on, that's what you're raising money on. But there's no path to kind of pure profitability just there because it was such you know, a 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 to 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 so in some of the path to kind of get through that and get to the next kind of holiday season. And so we ended up selling some of the assets and kind of winding down the company. It was brutal. I was very transparent with the company in the team while we were going through it, where actually despite how challenging that period was, very few people left. I mean, people loved the vision, the team, the culture, the chemistry of what we're doing. There's 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 at 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 as hardest thing might be anywhere else, like you'll never come, you know, come close to that where you feel that like responsibility for, you know, 200 plus people, right? And so we were very transparent during our fundraise on who we're talking to, the challenges

that we have while 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 I, you know, like, you know, when we announced it finally that like, you know, we, you know, basically we're just like watching kind of like, you know, the runway and trying to kind of time it in 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, you know, hands and some of you know, it had stepped in for a bit and like, it's just very, very emotional. But the beautiful part is

like afterwards like everybody stayed at the office to like two, three in just very, very emotional, but the beautiful part is like afterwards, like everybody stayed at the office to 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, from many people, it was like the best kind of work experience that they had. And there's a lot of pride in what we did. And it wasn't anything obvious that 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. But the experience was pretty incredible, but it was hard.

It had this feeling that there was just incredible beauty in both the technology and products and the team that there's a lot there that in like in the right context, could have been pretty incredible, but it was emotional. 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, 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 robot, the company or most of them, they're like going to 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 Cosmos not get a succeed, what is going to succeed? Because that to me was incredible. It was an incredible idea. Cost is down. The minimal design in physical form that you could do. It's really compelling. The balance of games, it's a fun toy, it's a great gift for all kinds of age groups. It's compelling in every single way.

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 that's what I was thinking like if this failed this must have failed because the it's obviously not like Yeah, it's business. Yeah, maybe maybe it's some aspect of the and so on. But I'm not realizing it's also not just that. It's sales, marketing, all those things. Oh, it's everything, right? How do you explain something that's like a new category to people that like how all these

pre-spositions? And so, it had some of the hardest elements of, if you were to pick a business, it had some of the hardest customer dynamics because to sell a $150 product, you were to pick a business, they had some of the hardest customer dynamics because like to sell a $150 product, you got to convince both the child to want it 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 is this feeling where like, it was just really great alignment of unique strength across kind of like all these different areas. Just like incredible, like, you know,

kind of character and animation team between this Carlos and there's like a character director day that came on board and like, you know, really great people there. The AI side, the, the manufacturing, the, you know, where, like never missing a launch, right? And actually, you know, kind of hit that quality was, yeah, never missing a launch, right?

And actually, you know, he kind of hit that quality 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 a stack, this much of letters from kids and families, just like every, you got a permutation, permutation you can imagine.

And so planning to kind of, I don't know, maybe like a five year, you know, five year to eight, 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 it should be proud, it's still tragic to know that, because 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 to that story and then just it's almost like a role of the dice they succeeded. And here's a role of the dice they succeeded. And here's a role of the dice that just happened to go.

And that's the appreciation that like when you really like talked a lot of the founders like everybody goes through those moments and sometimes it really is a matter of like timing a little bit of what 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 a lot of the team actually like stayed together. And so there were actually a couple of companies that we kind of kept big chunks of the team together, and we actually kind of helped align this 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 a V 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 then ended up, you know, maybe the time, you know, Sarah, Sarah and Dippad is timing from another perspective where like, kind of landed in a really unique circumstance that I should have been quite exciting to. So it's interesting to ask you just your thoughts. Cosmos still lives on under dream labs, I think. Is that, are you tracking the progress there or is it too much pain? Is it, are you, 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 even the product in the way it was was able to be manufactured. Again, that would just occur.

And go, I suppose. Yeah, which would be neat. But I think it's deceptive how tricky that is on everything from the quality control the details and then like technology changes that forces you to re-invent and update certain things. So, I haven't been super close to it, but just kind of keeping it on it. Yeah, it's really interesting.

Deceptively difficult, just as you're saying. For example, those same folks, and I spoke with them, they're part and up with Rick and Morty creators to do the Butter Robot, I love the idea. I just recently, I kind of half-assed watch Rick and Morty previously, but now I just watched 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 that particular character, just like you said, there's characters you can create, personalities, you can create in that particular robot who's doing a particular task realizes, you know, like realize, ask the existential question, the myth of the pacifist question that Kamu writes about, it's like, is this all there is? Is he moves butter? That realization, that's a beautiful little realization for a robot that I'm my purpose is very limited to this particular task. It's humor, of course,

is darkness, it's a beautiful mix. But so they want to release that butter robot, but something tells me about, but something tells me that to do the same depth of personalities, 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 Robots 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 dimensions and yeah, you know, 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, 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 when you see it? Is it like, love it for a site? It's like, this is right? Or like,

I guess, if we think of it as an optimization space, is there uncanny value? We like, that's not right. Or this is right. Or our lot of characters right. Yeah. We stayed away from uncanny value just by having such a different, like 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 hit in the mark. But you could just fall flat. We're just like a personality or character emotion just didn't feel right. And so it actually mirrored very closely to the iterations that a character director

Pixar would have, where you're running through it. And you can virtually see what it'll look like. We created a plug-in to where we actually used like Maya, the animation tools, and then we created a plug-in 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, 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 if we found it magical, it would scale and be magical more broadly. There were not too many cases where like, we were pretty decent about not getting to it, geeking out or getting to attach to something that was super unique to us,

but trying to kind of like put a customer hat on and does it truly kind of feel magical. And a lot of ways you just give a lot of autonomy to the character team to really think about the character board and mood boards and story boards 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 then like as a character in an animated film actually. It'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,

yeah, probably because it'll be machine learning based, that I'm surprised, that I don't, I'm surprised by certain reactions, I'm surprised by certain reactions. Surprise by certain communication. Maybe that's in a form of a question will you surprise by certain things Cosmo did, like certain interactions? Yeah, we made it intentionally like so that there would be some surprise than like a decent amount of variability in how you'd respond in certain circumstances.

And so in the end, like it's, this isn't generally I. This is a giant spectrum and library of like primer-trized 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 who 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. And so, but then when you combine it, the permutations and 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 you know 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

And not to different another 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 sufficient and complex, there is something like emergent behavior and that's when the magic is. As a human being, you can still appreciate the beauty of that magic of the final 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 love this. I love to just one last thing on the butter robot I promised, in terms of speech. Yeah. 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 speech, a feature or a bug of deep interaction, of an 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 in that's on top of just narrowing down the demographic where like the way you speak to an adult versus a way 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, while we are 2D2 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 going to be in that world for a little while where it's still very much an on-soft problem on how to make something. It touches on a uncanny valley thing. So if you have legs and you're a big humanoid looking thing, you have very different expectations in a much narrower degree of what's going to be acceptable by society, then if you're a robot like a Cosmour walling,

or some other form where you can 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 is certain kinds of speech that activates the uncanny value 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, uh, you're intentionally kind of like getting a toddler level of, uh, speech. So that's exactly right. So you can't have like, uh, tied into the experience where, uh, 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 and motions as part of the character itself.

And you've seen that in fictional characters as well. But that's why this podcast works. And you've got to have that with, I don't know, I guess, data and some of the other. Yeah, exactly. But yeah, and that becomes a constraint that lets you meet the bar. See, I also think like also if you add drunk and angry that gives you more constraints that allow you to be a dumber from an L.P. perspective.

Like, there's certain aspects. So if you modify human behavior, like, let's just 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's 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's another one like that. I'm sure there's a lot of other kind of situation. So maybe you look, yeah, again, language, loss, and translation, that kind of stuff that I think, if you play with that, what is it it the Ukrainian boy that passed the touring test? You know I'll 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 robust really being down to like skin and like kind of in some places I'm my my 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 the way for you. Creating a mind field of potential places to feel off. And then your side stepping where the biggest, kind of, functionally, eye challenges are, it 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 challenges. It's like,. And that's part of the challenge 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 port roboticist 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 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 eye-opening on just how incredible that people on 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. As you know, it got started in 2009. It was 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's doing is creating the systems, both hardware, software, infrastructure, and 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 and transporting goods.

But at the end of the day, the underlying capabilities 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 way more driver is the system that's irrespective of a particular vehicle it's operating in there. You have a set of sensors that perceive the world, can act in that world and move this whatever the vehicle is. Yeah, that's right. And so in the same way that you have a driver's license and like your ability to drive is entitled to a particular make a model of a car.

Of course there are special licenses for other types of vehicles, but the fundamentals of a human driver, very, very large you carry over. There's uniqueness 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 and enable a physical vehicle without a human driver to very successfully accomplish the task that previously wasn't possible without 100% human driving.

And then there's Waymo 1, 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? What's, is it just like a cool sounding name that just, yeah, like is there a, the disordering, interesting story there? 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 going to transport it via this and that and that. Oh cool. So it's just kind of like an illusion to the mechanics of transporting something. Yes, cool. And it is a pretty good grouping. And the interesting thing is that even the grouping is kind of bored or where Wayma 1 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 see that operated 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 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, given that you're operating on a lot of the same roads and navigating the same safety challenges. And so, yeah, and WaveMove very much is a multi-product company that has ambitions in both. They have different challenges and both are tremendous opportunities.

But the cool thing 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 only unique challenges, but the success cases that the challenges that you push on, they get leveraged across all platforms and all platforms. 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 isn't experience that carries over across any application that we'd have in a ebb and fold 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 to 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 Leimovia, the autonomous trucking effort the way Moves doing? Yeah, so we're starting with developing L4 autonomy for classic trucks. These are 53 foot trailers that capture like a big pretty sizeable percentage of the goods transportation in the country. Long term, the opportunity is obviously to expand a 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 enable where, you know, today you have already a giant shortage of truck drivers.

It's over 80,000 truck drivers 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 challenge around fatigue and the long routes they're driven. And even beyond the cost and necessity of it, there are fundamental constraints built in 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 a 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 and what it looks like today. Yeah, I had to be published before this at a great conversation with Steve Vichelli 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 The fascinating human stories of truck drivers He was also was a truck driver for for for bit as a grassland to try to understand the depth of the problem He's a fascinating lives We have some drivers that have four million miles of lifetime driving experience. It's pretty incredible.

And yeah, it's, yeah, it's, learning from them, like some of them are on the road for 300 days a year. It's 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 a job, counter joy, this I think's 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, it's 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 want to 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, that's a good question. So there's, and as you can expect it to 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 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 structural 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? Is there a standard thing that's brought up in conversation often? Here's a stretch of road. What is it?

When people talk about traveling across country, they'll talk about New York, San Francisco. Is that the route? 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 problems that you solve here. Right. So starting with the car side,

well, way more 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, you know, kind of economy, a big percentage of that market is captured in the densest cities in the United States. And so really pushing out and solving San Francisco becomes a really huge opportunity and importance. And, you know, 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 drive a list there actually exposes you to a lot of the building blocks you need for the more complicated environments. And so in a lot a list 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 and you know other ones like LA kind of had free wage 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 a tenth city and a 20th city. On trucking, there is some more properties where

obviously there's uniqueness is 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 some of the service-free 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, the Houston, Dallas, the Phoenix going out east and Austin. Austin, so that triangle, Waymo should come to Austin.

Well, Waymo, the car side wasn't Austin for a while. Yes, I know. Yeah, come back. Yeah. But the trucking is actually Texas is one of the best places to start because of both volume, regulatory weather, there's a lot of benefits. On trucking, a huge opportunity is port of LA going east. 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. The amount of goods going east from there is pretty tremendous. And then obviously, there's, you know, kind of channels everywhere. And then you have extra complexities as you get into like snow and incumbent 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 hub.

So the million questions I could ask. 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 5 is really fully autonomous driving. Level 4 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 4 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 urbany 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 gotta 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, 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 the market is so critical. Right. And with the town's driving and 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. We can imagine depots that are at the entry points to metropolitan areas, like what say Dallas, like the hub that we're building, which does a few things 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 want to handle at that point in time. Now you build the hub specifically designed for time.

That's what's going to happen, actually. You need to come out and generate and check it out because it's going to be really cool. It's the, not only is it our main operating headquarters for our fleet there, but it will be the first fully ground up design driverless hub for autonomous drivers It's on the rocks in terms of where do they enter? Where do they depart? How do you think about the flow of people goods everything? It's like 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, we're already 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 the 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 the, 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. And that's the difference between L4 and L5, and most people would agree that

at least any time in the foreseeable future L5 is just not even really worth thinking about, because there's always going to 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 got to ask you just curious. So first of all, I have to, when I'm allowed, visit the Dallas facility because 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 got to be very robot friendly.

Yeah, that's great. I will feel it home. The worst sense or sweet like on the hub, if you can just high level mention it, is that does the hub have like light hours and like is it 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 connected. 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 sort 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 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 or, and obviously these trucks can also be manually driven. So sometimes like our we talk with our fleet partners about how you can buy a WAMO equipped, die more 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 all two functionality that add safety systems and so forth. But as soon as they become as soon as we expand and 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, because you mentioned that also opportunity to revamp or for build-term scratch some of the ideas around logistics. I don't want to 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 can break down why, but there's probably competing companies. There's just the mess. Maybe some of it is literally just it's old school. It's not computerized. 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 one of the most motivating aspects of all this where, like, yes, there's like a mountain of problems that are like, you have to solve the get to like the first checkpoints and first driverless 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 right now because of just

this demands and gaps in competition and so forth. And then it's also incredibly fragmented, where you would be shocked when you look at industries, you think of the top 10 players, like the biggest fleets, the Wal-Mart and FedExes 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 truck operation is like a one-to-five truck family business. There's just a huge amount of fragmentation which makes for really interesting challenges in stitching together stitching together through like bolt and boards and brokerages and some people run their own fleets and and this world's kind of like evolving but it is one of the West 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 the $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 while trying to solve the autonomous trucking problem, Waymo might solve first the logistics problem. Like, that would already be a huge impact.

Yeah. So on the way to solving a 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 optimal. The handoffs, the like, you know, well, even you get really ambitious, you start to expand as beyond like, how does the

fulfillment center work and like, how does 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 L.A. 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 L.A. 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 to learn about how the constraints of autonomous trucking, which are very, very different to 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 with some of the largest fleets in the US and the sort of warnings 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 road map in a lot of ways

because this is not like an all or nothing problem it 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 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 still do in the communication, but it opens up all kinds of communities, varieties of communication that you didn't anticipate.

That's right. Constraints are just completely different. 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 in the interesting thing while Waymo is because there's the passenger vehicle, the human, the transportation of humans and transportation of goods, you can 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 slightly longer and then there'll be this. Then you just see the difference to pass in your 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 way more driver that doesn't as long as you have the same size as sweet 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 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 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, you know, unless you hit something to actually kind of like roll over or 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, you know, you could have really interesting interactions between the cabin and the trailer. There's something called Jack Knifeing if you turn too quickly, you have role risks and so forth.

And so we spend 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 the algorithm so that you're leveraging your dynamic range but always staying within a safety balance but understanding what those safety bounds are.

So we have this really cool test facility where we 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 try to actually stay 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. 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 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, you know, take on two trillion dollar 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 sense of suite they can speak to that a long haul truck needs to have. Light our vision.

How many? What are we talking about here? 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 it as like 2X, but it varies depending on the sensor. And so we have 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 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

see how the mirrors next to the driver. The effect of it goes far out as possible. Kind of up to the front. 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 is higher than the cabin, and you would be accluded 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 components.

There's so many probably fascinating design choices. It's really cool. Because you can probably bring up a lighter hire and have it in the center, something you can have all kinds of choices to make the decisions here. Yeah, that ultimately probably will define the industry. By having two on the side, there's actually multiple benefits. So one is like, um, you're just beyond the trailer. So you can see fully flush with the trailer.

And so you eliminate most of your blind spot access to right behind the trailer, um, which is, 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 that 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. And at scale, every one of them fail and you're still okay. And at scale, every one of them will fail.

And you will be able to detect one one of them fails because they don't, because they were done and see that they're giving you the data that's inconsistent with the rest of it. 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 or the some electrical thing gets cut or you know 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 his redundancy, and 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 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 we 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 lidars is rich seven information as its strengths. Has some weaknesses camera is a rich source of information that

has some strengths as its weaknesses. What role does the lidar play? What role does Lidar play? What role does Vision cameras play? In this beautiful problem of autonomous trucking? It is beautiful. There's so much that comes together. And how much or at which point do they come together? Yeah. So let's start with Lidar. So Lidar has been like one of Waymo's big strengths and advantages,

where we developed our Lidarlidar in-house where many generations in both in cost and functionality, it is the best in this space. Which generation? Because I know there's this cool, I love versions that are increasing, which version of the hardware stack is it currently? Officially, I you have public leave. So some parts iterate more than others. I'm trying to remember on the sensor side.

So the entire self-draiding system, which includes sensors and compute is fifth generation. Yes. I can't wait until there's like, iPhone style like announcements for like new versions of the way my hardware stack. Yeah. Well, we try to be careful because, man,

when you change the hardware, it takes a lot to like, we train the models and hardware. Yeah, well, we try to be careful because, man, when you change the hardware, it takes a lot to like, we train the models and everything. So we just went through that and going from the Pacifico 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 primary sensor. Then obviously everything has its strengths and weaknesses. In the near range, LIDAR is a gigantic advantage. It has its weaknesses on when it comes to occlusions in certain areas, rain and weather, 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, to kind of apply a male approach. Can you elaborate consistency? Oh, 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. We can still consistent with in the face of a changing external environment, the signal. Yeah, daytime, nighttime.

It's about 3D physical existence. In a fact, like you're seeing beams of light that bounce, 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 compliments 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 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 interesting challenges there, the off the solve, which have a bunch of approaches to come into it. Radar is interesting because it also has longer range than 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 kind of interesting where we've kind of started to converge towards not thinking about a problem as a lighter problem or a camera problem or a 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 sensors in a great position to really solve this problem and then

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 lighter suite for each sensor suite individually? The lighter suite and the camera suite, or do you do some kind of heterogeneous fusion or do you fuse at the very beginning? What is is there a good answer or at least an inkling of intuitions?

You can come. Yeah, so people refer to this as like early fusion or late fusion. So late fusion might be that you have like First of this is like early fusion or late fusion. So late fusion might be that you have like the camera pipeline, the lighter 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 complimentary strengths and weaknesses of the sensors. Whether it'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 a weird kind of noise in the camera, blah, 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 I kind of fowing on the actual lens from, you know, 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, 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 with autonomous driving? Autonomous trucking? It's massive and it's increasing over time. If you go back to the grand challenge days and the early days of AV development, there was ML, but it was not in the mass scale data style of ML. It was like learning models, but in a more structured way. And it was a lot of heuristic and search-based approaches

and planning and so forth. You can make 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 and 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 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 is 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, 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 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 is 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 I try and do create a data pipeline specifically for the trucking problem.

How much leveraging of the autonomous driving is there in terms of data collection? 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. And it's almost like a good back arm model. Yeah, it's like you can think of like, you 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 increasing, we're thinking about our data strategy on how we leverage both of these. So you think about 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 a road do. There's a lot of carry over this 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. This all different visual characteristics of roads, lane markings, pedestrians, all that, that's still relevant. It's still relevant. And then just the fundamentals of how 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'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 interesting objects in the road or incidents or even like from a human benchmark, like how often does a human have an 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 infinite lead and 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 1,000 miles for every mile in drives. So you think of in both across the board. Across the board, yeah. So you think of, for example, well, if we've driven 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 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? Operation, the actual physical driving is the least efficient form I'm 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 a just random sample of 100,000 miles, how has this metric changed versus where we are today? You can do that for 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 performing on the car side or the truck inside relative to

a human, a lot of that safety cases 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 what anything have happened. And in most cases, the answers know, 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 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. That's the only evaluation problem. Which metric are you evaluating towards?

We're talking about safety and some, what are the performance metrics that we're talking about? So in the end, you care about safety. That's in the end what keeps you... That's what's deceptive where there's a lot of companies that have a great demo. The path from 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 on a demo. It's the stuff that you encounter once in 100,000 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 warnings, like those were painful warnings in Waymo's history that Waymo went through and went to us then finally being able to go driverless and 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 and severities to make sure that you're better than a human bar, you know, 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 human driver in various dimensions of 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 a car driver, but it's not the human because because you know, humans are flawed. Yeah, yeah. How do you actually know you're ready basically like it? How do you know it's good enough? Yeah, and by the way, this is a reason why like, way more released a safety framework for the car side because like one, it sets the bar so nobody cuts below it and does something bad for the field that causes an accident too.

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, different portfolio of approaches. There's easy things like, are you compliant with all these fundamental rules of the road? You never drive above the speed limit. That's actually pretty easy. Like, you can fundamentally prove that it's either impossible to violate that rule or that in these like, you can itemize the scenarios where that comes up and you can do a test and

show that you, you know, you pass that test and therefore, you can handle that scenario. And so those are like traditional structured 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 itemized 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 they 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 injury is 28 million 1.3 million miles and something that actually has 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 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

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 driveless quality bar, but then continue to aggressively change the software even while you're driveless. And so, and also the full range of environment that you're, there's an external climate with a shuttle, 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. And so, uh, so in a lot of ways, like, um,

the turning test starts to fail pretty quickly because you start to feel driverless quality, um, 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? 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 counter.

So let's try something different. Then let's try a different version of the Tourant S, which is like an IQ test. So there's these difficult questions of increasing difficulty. They're very, they're designed. You don't know them ahead of time. Nobody knows the answer to them. And so is it possible to, in the future, orchestrate, basically really get the-

Off the 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,

yeah, because you didn't know them at a time, like I don't know. Probably, like construction zones, failures, or driving anywhere in Russia. Yeah, like 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 break, something reckless that they've done, fouling of sensors like bugs or birds, you know, poop or something so like. 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 get pulled to the other side of the freeway with a temporary lane. Like 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. If you think of traditional ML, you know how there's a validation set where you hold out some data.

And real world driving is the ultimate validation set. That's the in the end, the cleanest signal. But you can do a really good job on creating an obstacle course, and you're absolutely right, if there was such a thing as automating and a readiness, it would be these extreme conditions,

like a red light runner, a really reckless pedestrian that's J-walking. A cyclist that 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 touring test. Touring test means a lot of things.

But to me in driving, the touring 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 Charlotte. He designed, he thinks about like how to sign a test for general intelligence. He decides he's IQ test for machines. And the validation set for him is handcrafted. And that it requires like human genius and 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 thing. The hardest thing. 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 super and frequently. So 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, 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 Weimo 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, which, 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 many of that, just technically. Yeah. Yeah. And we could summarize, I think, maybe you can correct me. What one of the more distinct aspects is, uh, Waymo has a richer suite of sensors as 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 out in the field, and it's larger, what do you call it, the operational domain, and then Waymo is more focused on a specific domain and growing it with fewer vehicles. So that's the both of fascinating approaches, both of 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, like 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 center 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 like 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 dimeware program It becomes such an advantage because you learn a lot as you drive. 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 in what you learn, and the gap from really decent progress or all too and so forth to what it takes to actually go all for. At the end of the day, there's a feeling that Waymo has, there's a long way to go, nobody's one, 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, we can go and you can use it. And it's at a decently sizable scale. And those learnings can feed forward to how to solve the more general problem. And you see this process, you've deployed it 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 bind R and D. Because it works in one place, and then you move in 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 and 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, it weighed beyond human relative safety, it is fundamentally not well set up to scale

in an exponential fashion without getting into huge scaling pains. Those learnings you just can't shortcut. That's an advantage. There's a lot of open challenges to get through. Technical organizational, how do you solve problems that are increasingly broad and complex like this, work on multiple products. There's a few in that, okay, like balls in our court, there's a head start there. Now we got to go and solve it. And I think that focused on L4, it's a fundamentally different problem. If you think about it, like, what they 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 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, let me allow me to be the person that plays a devil's advocate and then 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 Thessalon's doing, will'll get us there faster. If the sensor suite doesn't matter as much, a 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. Yeah. 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 super power where they have an access to real world data effectively with like a Safety driver and you know like they found a way to like get paid by safety drivers versus

But you know 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, really aggressive investment in autonomy space. If you can do it, that's always an incredible advantage. In 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 that matter at real world scale at 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 long term, there's no reason to believe that pure camera systems can solve the problem the humans obviously are solving with vision systems. But 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 are on 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, like, which is on its own is still like almost insurmountably hard, even harder. And so the question is just how much? And this is where like you can easily get into a little bit of a trap where similar to how

you evaluate how good a Navy company's product is. You go and you do a trial test run with them, a demo run, which they've optimized like crazy and so forth. And it feels good. Do you put any weight in that? You know that that gap is pretty large still. Same thing on the perception case. The long tail of computer, you know, 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. It'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 a value. So together we're kind of learning about this problem in an applied sense, just like you had with Cosmo. Like 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 precedes 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?

Is still not answered to me. Yeah. I still don't understand the, the subtle cues, like even little things like, you're interaction with a pedestrian where you look at each other and just go, okay, go, right? Like, that's hard to do without a human driver, right? And you're missing that dimension.

How do you communicate that? So there's like really, really interesting kind of like elements here. Now, here's what's beautiful. Can you imagine that like when autonomous driving is solved, how much of the technology foundation of that like space can go and have like tremendous just transformative impacts on other problem areas and other spaces that have subtext of the same problems? Like it's just incredible. What? It's both a pro and a con is problems. Like it's just incredible. Well, it's is both a pro and a con is with autonomous driving is so

safety critical. It's so so what once you solve it is beautiful because there's so many applications that are a lot less safety critical. But it's also the the con of that is it's so safety is so hard to solve. And the same journalists that you mentioned to 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. It's just society so tense and waiting for failure of robots. You're in the such a high-stake environment failure has such a high cost

And it's so done development. It's slow is done development Yeah, like the team like definitely notice that like once you go driverless like we're driving with some phoenix and you continue to Interrate your iteration pace slows down Yeah, because you're fear of regression forces so much more rigor that you know obviously You know, 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 like validation

process, which is very expensive and so forth. So it is interesting. It's like, it is just one of the hardest things. There's no other industry where like, you would not, like, you wouldn't release 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. Yeah, that's right. But at the same time, we've gotten there where you think of surgery, like you have surgery, there's always a risk, but it's really, really bounded. You know that there's an accident rate when you go out and drive your car today,

right? 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 relative safety.

Here's the thing. To push back a little bit and bring Cosmo back in the conversation. You said something quite brilliant in the beginning of this conversation that 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 to take in one year 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 with Cosmo case, there was something about the way this particular robot communicated the energy abroad the intent it was able to communicate to the humans that you understood that of course he needs to have a camera. Yeah, of course he needs to have this information. And that same way to me, of

course, a carnice to take risks. Of course, there's going to be accidents. That's what, like, that's, you know, if you want a car that never has an accident, to have a car that just doesn't go anywhere. And so that, but that's tricky because that's not a robotics problem. Oh, many accidents like are not even under, like due to you, though. Yeah. You are, 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 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, I, this is me speaking. I think if we look into the future, there will be, I personally believe this is me speaking. Yeah. That there will be less and less focus on safety.

It's still very, very high. Yeah, meaning like after autonomy is very common and accepted. You're not, not, not so common as 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 terms

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 a human relative safety and and provably statistically will save lives, there is a thoughtful navigation of, you know, the 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 there's kind of like a curve that happens after it, but in eventually celebrity is you get the rock in a way more vehicle and then everybody just comes up. And then everybody comes down because the rock likes it. Yeah. So. If rock likes it. Yeah. So. If you post him. Yeah.

And it's like, it's an open question on how this plays out. I mean, maybe we're personally surprised. And it's 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 actually fully believe

that this will go from a thoughtful kind of, you know, you know, 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 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 pre-requisite. 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 of technologies where like overnight things change. It's like from taxis to ride-charing services, all that that shift. I mean, there's just shift after shift after shift that requires digitization and technology. I hope we're pleasant and 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 waymo trucks

and maybe just broadly speaking, waymo vehicles, just like ants running around, United States freeways and local roads. Yeah, in 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 and 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, you know, how is the world before the internet?

How is 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 sometimes think about weird ways in my change to world, like surprising ways. So obviously, there's more direct ways where like there's increased its efficiency.

It will enable a lot of kind of logistics optimizations, kind of things. It will change our, 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 my change cities, how my change your 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. And there's a lot of options that open up the way out 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 some really high stat. 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 a lot of constraints that we have. I think it'll be great for the environment, it'll be great for safety. We're 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 industries will shift, but the net creation is going to 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, the in almost all cases that like it's an enabling factor that's going to kind of propagate through society. And particularly as life expectancy is getting longer and so forth, there's just a lot more need for a greater percentage of the population to just be serviced with a high level of efficiency because otherwise we can have a really hard time kind of scaling to what's ahead in the next 50 years. And you're absolutely right.

Every technology has negative consequences, the positive consequences. We tend to focus on the negative a little bit too much. In fact, autonomous trucks are often burnt up as an example of artificial intelligence, the robots in general, taking our jobs. And as we've talked about briefly here, we talk a lot with Steve. You know, that's,

it is a concern that automation will take away certain jobs. You'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. 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, it was going to 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 incentivize lower the age limit, like all these sort of things. And the demand is just going to increase.

And the least favorable, I mean, 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. Yeah, he's talked about the pain of those kind of routes from a family perspective. You're basically away from family. It's not just hours, you work in saying hours, but it's also just time away from family. And just. OPCD rain 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 going to take decades to 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 going to 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 going to 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 more urban routes, which are also the more more pleasant ones, which are less continual driving time or more flexibility on like geography and location, and you get to kind of sleep at home at home. And very importantly, if you optimize the logistics, you're going to use humans much better. And thereby pay them much better. Because one of the biggest problems is truck drivers currently are paid by how much they drive. So they really feel the pain of it in efficient logistics. Because if they're just sitting around for hours, which they often do not driving, waiting, did I get paid for that time.

That's right. And that, 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 it seemed 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 but if we zoom out broader, you know, automation

and AI does technology broadly, I would say, but, you know, automation is a thing that has a potential in the next couple of decades to shift the kind of jobs available to humans. Yes. 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, of, you know, 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 robot, as zooming out from the truck thing? Like, where do you think it would be harder to find activity and work that's a source of identity and 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, not just the party, it's hot and we play in it, but what are the ripple effects of it down the road. On enough of a time when there's a lot of opportunity to put in the right policies and 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 very focused kind of assistance on areas where the vehicle may request help in understanding an environment. Those are jobs that get created and supported. I remember 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 picking and collecting of items.

It's really elegant and beautiful way. It's actually one of my favorite applications of robotics of all time. I think it kind of came across that company like 2006 was just amazing. And what was the warehouse, robots, the transport little thing? 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 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, whatever points to what you need to get and you go and pick it and you place it to fill the order and so that 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 jobs stayed, like nobody, it was actually the same amount of jobs, roughly they were necessary, but the throughput increased by, I think, over 2X or some amount, right? So you have these situations that are not zero-sum games in this real interesting way. The optimist of 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've got to be intentional about finding those and really helping make those links. Even if you make the argument that there's a net positive,

locally, there's always net positive, locally there's always tough hits that you got to be very careful about. That's right, you have to have an understanding of that link because there's a short period of time where their training is acquired or just mental transition or physical or whatever is acquired, that's still going to be short-term pain, the uncertainty of it. There's families involved. It's exceptionally 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, what we need to like, subsidize it, whatever, because like there is an element of just personal pride where majority of people like 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 skill set 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, it's Amazon has announced it. 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 and this kind of space? There's been quite a bunch of home robots, social robots that very unfortunately have closed their doors that for various reasons perhaps are too expensive. There's been a manufacturing challenges all that kind of stuff. What are your thoughts about Amazon getting into this space? Yeah, we had some signs that they were getting into like long long long ago. Maybe they were too interested in Cosmo and the factoring our conversations. But they're also very good partners actually for us as we kind of just integrated a lot of share technology.

But 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 reactions, I think, I have my doubts that this one's going to hit the mark because I think for the price point that it's at, and the functionality and value propositions that they're trying to put out, it's still searching for the KIO application that justifies, I think it was a $1,500 price point or somewhere on there. That's a really high bar.

So there's enthusiasts, an early adopter is obviously kind of pursuant, 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 that 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 going to be the biggest challenge is like, can you meet the bar of what the

mass market consumer, like, you know, think like, you think like our neighbors, our friends, parents, like would they find a deep deep value like in this at a mass scale that just buys a 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. There's, that's either a super desirable quality or super undesirable quality, depending on how much you trust the thing.

That's right. And so there's a, there's a problem of trust this solve there. There's a problem of personality. It's the quote unquote problem that Cosmo solved so well. Yeah. Is that you trust the thing. Yeah. And that has to do with the company, with the leadership, with the intent that's communicated by the device and the company and all that. I think 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 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 the advantage of Alexa is a pretty huge boost for them. The character side of it for technology companies is pretty novel territory and so that we'll take some iterations. But yeah, I mean, I hope I hope this continued progress in the space and that thread doesn't kind of go dormant for too long. And it's not, you know, it's going to take a while to kind of evolve into like the ideal applications. But, you know, this is one of Amazon's, I guess you like, you could call it. It's definitely like part of their DNA. I guess you could call it,

it's definitely part of their DNA, but in many cases it's also strength where they're very willing to iterate kind of aggressively and move quickly. I'll take risks. I mean, we have deep pockets so you can go. And then when we have more misfires than an Apple would, but it's different styles and different approaches.

And at the end of the day, it's like there's a few familiar kind of elements there for sure, which was kind of a mosh. It's 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, I thought Cosmphasure would live for a very long time. That to me was exceptionally successful vision and idea and implementation.

I robot is an example of a company that has pivoted in all the right ways to survive and arguably thrive by focusing on 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 But outside of those examples Most robust companies fail. Yeah. Why do they fail? Why is it so hard to run a robust company? I wrote about impressive because they found a really really great fit of where the technology could satisfy a really clear used case and need and

fit of where the technology could satisfy a really clear used case and need. And they did it well and they didn't try to overshoot from a cost of benefit standpoint. Robotics is hard because it tends to be more expensive, it combines way more technologies than a lot of other types of companies do. If I were to say one thing that is maybe the biggest risk in a robotics company failing is that it can be either a technology in search of an application, or they try to bite off kind of an offering that has a mismatch in kind of price to function. And just a mass market appeal isn't there.

And consumer products are just hard. It's just, I mean, after all the years and 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, be up to educate and explain, get awareness up, deal with different productive consumers. Like, you know, there's, there's a reason

why a lot of technology sometimes start in the enterprise space and then kind of continue forward in the consumer space. Even like you see AR starting to make that shift with HoloLens and so forth in some ways. Consumers and price points that they're willing to be attracted in a mass market way. I don't mean like 10,000 enthusiasts bought it by, you know, two 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 on standardized enough to where it pushes on price points so much, you can easily get out of range where the capabilities and today's technology

are just a 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 a rather super compelling apps is much smaller because it's easy to get outside of the price range. Yeah, and it's almost consumers. And it's not constant, right? Like, yeah, and that's why we picked off entertainment because the quality was just so low and 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 kind of technologies that start in one place evolve and kind of grow to another, something start in gaming, something 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.

And sometimes it's a small detail of the implementation that makes all the difference, which is the design design is so important. Something like the new generation UX, right? And that's tough, and oftentimes all of them have to be there, and it has to be like a perfect storm. 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 robotics, application, folks application. What's the role of humanoid robotics? Did you think test labot 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.

Be on a certain point, just add a lot of complexity and cost. So if you're doing a humanoid robot, oftentimes it's in a pursuit of a humanoid robot, not in a pursuit of an application for the time being. Especially when you have like kind of the gaps in interface and kind of AI that we kind of talk about today. So anything you want does I'm interested in following so there's a moment of that where I'm not crazy. No matter how crazy it is, I just like I'll pay attention and I'm curious to see what

comes out of it. So it's like you can't you can't ever ignore it. But you know, it's definitely far afield from their kind of core business obviously. And what was interesting to me is that I, I've disagreed with, you know, Elon a lot about this is to me, the, the compelling aspect of the humanoid form and a lot of kind of robots, Cosmo, for example, is the human robot interaction part. Yeah. Uh, from Elon Musk's perspective, the Tesla bought 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 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 cosmos is compelling. I would argue, if we were arguing about this, that it's cheaper to build a cosmos like that form. But if you wanted to make an argument, which I have with Jim Keller, 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 the cosmos, that maybe it's interesting for integration to human society. That's, that's to me, the interesting application of a humanoid form, because humans are drawn, like I mentioned to you, legged robots. We're drawn to legs and limbs, body language and all that kind of stuff.

And even a face, even if you don't have the facial features, which you might now wanna have for the, 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. And almost certainly, the human form is over designed for some dimensions and constrained for some dimensions. And so what are you grasping? Is it big? Is it little? So you would customize it and make it customizable for the different needs if that was the optimization.

And then for the other one, I could totally be wrong. I still feel that the closer you try to get to a human, the more your 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, you know, and the 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 LEGO 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 walking and jumping and so forth. Now, there's been a long journey to try to find an application for that sort of technology, but wow, that's incredible technology, right? So 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 the two have to meet. And that's where humanoid robots is kind of close to that in that 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 from the other end. But I think the core fascinating idea with the Tesla bot is the one that's carried by Waymo as well as when you're solving the general robotics problem of perception control where the is the very clear applications of driving it's as you get better and better at it when you have like Waymo driver. Yeah. The whole world starts to kind of start to look like a robotics problem. So it's very interesting. For now, your fiction,

costification, segmentation, tracking, planning, like it's carried. 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, you know, take the goods up an elevator, you know. Yeah, like that, 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 of it as an end-end robotics problem from loading from everything is. And even like the truck itself, today's generation is integrating into today's understanding of what a vehicle is, a Pacifica, Jaguar, the freight liners from Daimor.

There's nothing that stops us 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 like I actually went, I was a CMU foreigner who got 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, like such an incredible, like central spot of development 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 impolation, 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 at Ph.D.N. like it is in most areas will evolve and change, just 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 can 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 and machine learning,

computer vision, systems, hardware, sensors, all these separate things. You do need to go deep and find something that you're really, really passionate about. Obviously just like any PhD. This is like a five, six year endeavor. 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.

In robotics, I probably means more breadth because robotics is rarely one particular kind of narrow technology. And it means being able to collaborate with teams where one of the coolest aspects of the experience that I had, kind of cherished in our PhD, is that we actually had a pretty large AV project that for that time was 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 mechanic was a DARPA challenge So I was working on the 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 weight point 10 kilometers away and it would have to navigate a compliance truck. Yeah, 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 up to my shoulders. It's like gigantic, right? Yeah, by the way, AV for people's tents for autonomous vehicles. That was 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 and 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 health care or you can do health care, or you can do like leverage the AI around the sensing to think about static sensors and scene understanding. So, I think that's got to be the expectation and the excitement. And it breathes people, they're 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 I think you don't... You're not like a sitting in like the fourth basement. That's 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 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 forms. It's like a purity of the passion. And you got to remember that like right now, like robotics and AI is like 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 a cool thing in the world 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. And so there's like a raw passion where they went into it for the right reasons and so forth. And 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 the 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 there's like a really reasonably well-established modularity and APIs and so forth. And so you can kind of scale it in an efficient fashion. That doesn't exist anywhere near to that level of maturity in autonomous driving right now.

And text acts 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 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 know, you have this like multi-dimensional matrix that needs to all work together. And so, that makes it kind of cool as as well because it's not like solved at all from, you know, like, what does it take that she scaled 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. And how do you like solve these problems that touch on so many different areas

and efficiently tackle them while 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 in the 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, yeah, the, the, the grammar 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, cannot 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, wean on to somebody that's in the thick of it with you helps a lot. What I would say. What was the nature of darkest days in the emotional swings? Is it worried about the funding?

Is it worried about what funding, is it worried about what the 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, what? 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 solve the set or do whatever and you just kind of get it done now PhD test 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 and up results that you get a PhD. In the startup space, like you could talk to 50 investors, and they just don't see your vision, and it doesn't matter how hard you've 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 you gotta have this milestone in order to 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 have to get 200 people or however many people, like along with you and buy in the journey, you're disagreeing with an investor. And they're your investor. So it's just like, there's no walking away from it. And it tends to be like those things

where you just kind of get cobbled 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 great mentors and you like get fine,

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. 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 talented 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 a way more 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 anomaly, like by any measure of any industry that's ever existed, except for maybe the US space program, like right? Like, 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 a de-rising of it, you could apply whatever discounts you want off that trillion dollar market and still justifies the investment that is happening because like being successful in that space makes all the investment 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 going to be, who the acumbents 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 with the, you have the greatest idea in the world, but you barrel into healthcare institutional headwinds of a particular environment. With the greatest idea in the world, you barrel into healthcare, but it takes 10 years to innovate in healthcare because of a lot of challenges. There's fundamental laws of physics that you have to think about. The combination of Ankyu and Weimo 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 robotics is really interesting. You said exactly right. The space of applications is small. Yeah. You know, 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, everything that Cosmo did, I guess you could talk to it as a toy and people will understand it, because it was much more than a toy. Yeah.

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 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 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 I had a fundamental purpose. And it's all these things that it did better. Right. Sure. And so then you could do a BC on top of it.

And then like, you even remember the early commercials where there's always like one application that what it could do. And then you get a phone call. Right. And so that was intentionally sending a message, something familiar, but then like, yes, you can send a text message, you go listen to music, you can surf the web, right? And so, you know, 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 I got 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 find 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 you kind of are able to Take what's familiar anchor that understanding and then explain what's what's better about it. That's funny. You're right. Cosmos like totally new thing like what what is this thing is we struggle. We spent a lot of money on marketing. We had a hard, like we actually had far greater efficiency on Cosmo than anything else,

because we found a way to capture the emotion in some little shorts to kind of lean into the personality in our marketing. And it became viral where we had these kind of videos that would like go and get like hundreds of thousands of views and like kind of like it spread and sometimes millions of views. And so, but it was really, really hard.

And so finding a way to anchor on something that's familiar but then grow into something that's not is a disadvantage. But then again, there's success as otherwise. 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 a category out of like Kiva Systems. I mean, they came in and they like,

enterprise is a little easier because if you can, it's less susceptible to this 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... And the home, you have to... Yeah, so a home robot is 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. And we, by the way, went to that same window. 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 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 family of four need this. So it's learnings, but that's the challenge.

And I think 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, it'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 will, this is like, this is transformative for your life. This is fun. This is a piece of tech is for your life. This is fun. This is how these tech is in your thing. They don't, they really don't care.

They need to know why they want it. And some of that is just marketing. Yeah, and presently. And that's like Rumba, yes, they didn't go and have this huge, huge ramp into the entirety of the air robotics and so forth, but they both are really great business in a vacuum cleaner world. Everybody understands where a vacuum cleaner is. Most people are annoyed by doing it. Now you have one that does it itself. It varies degrees of quality, but that is so compelling that it's easier to understand.

I think they have 15% of the vacuum cleaner markets, 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's cheaper, compute's cheaper, clouds cheaper, and AI's 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 can 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, like, push hard enough to be, you know, to, like, maximize your potential in it. And so there's a, 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, you know what I mean? Like, is this like, it's a, you know, that's a beautiful thing where like you can do what you love, but it's also just opens up tons of opportunities because the world's ready for it, right? So if you're interested in technology, that might point to go and study machine learning

because you don't have to decide what career you're going to go into, but it's going to be such a versatile space that's going to be at the root of everything that's going to be in front of us that you can have eight different careers in different industries and be an absolute expert in this toolset that you can have eight different careers in different industries and be an absolute expert in this kind of tool set that you wield

that can go and be applied. But wait, that doesn't apply to just technology, right? It could be the exact same thing if you wanna, same thought process of price to design, to marketing, 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 that killer overlap of timing and passion and skill set and point in life where you can just really be motivated and fall in love

with something. And then at the same time, find a balance. There's been times in my life where I worked a little bit too obsessively and crazy. And I think we kind of like tried to correct it kind of the right opportunities. But I think I probably appreciate a lot more now friendships to go way back family and things like that.

And I'm kind of have the personality where I have so much desire to really try to optimize, like when I'm working on that, I can easily go to a kind of an extreme. And now I'm trying to find that balance and make sure that I have the friendships, the family, the relationship with the kids, everything that 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 those dimensions makes a lot of sense. And so, I mean, those were all interrelated, but at the end of the day, I love passion and love.

Love tours, you said family, friends, family. And hopefully, one day, if your work pans out, Boris, his love tours robots. Love tours. Not a creepy kind, a good kind. That's a good kind. Just this 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, roboticists. You've created some incredible robots and I think inspired countless people. And like I said, I hope Cosmo, I hope you work with Anki Liveson. And I can't wait to see what you do with Waymo. I mean, that's if we're talking about artificial intelligence technology, that'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, Max. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Boris Safman. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you 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. you