Lex Fridman Podcast - Rosalind Picard: Affective Computing, Emotion, Privacy, and Health

Episode Date: June 17, 2019

Rosalind Picard is a professor at MIT, director of the Affective Computing Research Group at the MIT Media Lab, and co-founder of two companies, Affectiva and Empatica. Over two decades ago she launched the field of affective computing with her book of the same name. This book described the importance of emotion in artificial and natural intelligence, the vital role emotion communication has to relationships between people in general and in human-robot interaction. If you would like to get more information about this podcast go to https://lexfridman.com/ai or connect with @lexfridman on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, Medium, or YouTube where you can watch the video versions of these conversations.

The following is a conversation with Rosalind Picard. She's the professor at MIT, director of the Effective Computing Research Group at the MIT Media Lab, and co-founder of two companies, F.E.K.T.VA and Empatica. Over two decades ago, she launched a field of effective computing with her book, The Same Name. This book described the importance of emotion, in artificial and natural intelligence. The vital role of emotional communication has to the relationship between people, in general,

and human robot interaction. I really enjoy talking with Raws over so many topics including emotion, ethics, privacy, wearable computing, and her recent research and epilepsy, and even love and meaning. This conversation is part of the Artificial Intelligence Podcast. If you enjoy it, subscribe by YouTube, iTunes, or simply connect with me on Twitter at Lex Friedman spelled F-R-I-D. And now here's my conversation with Rosalind Picard. More than 20 years ago, you've coined the term effective computing and let a lot of research in this area.

Since then, as I understand the goal is to make the machine detect and interpret the emotional state of a human being and adapt to the behavior of the machine based on the emotional state. So how is your understanding of the problem space defined by effect computing changed in the past 24 years? So it's the scope, the application, the challenges, what's involved, how's that evolved over the years?

Yeah, actually originally when I defined the term affective computing, it was a bit broader than just recognizing and responding intelligently to human emotion, although those are probably the two pieces that we've worked on, the hardest. The original concept also encompassed machines that would have mechanisms that functioned like human emotion does inside them. It would be any computing that relates to arises from or deliberately influences human emotion. So the human computer interaction part

is the part that people tend to see. Like if I'm, you know'm really ticked off at my computer and I'm scowling at it and I'm cursing at it, and it just keeps acting, smiling and happy like that little paperclip used to do, like dancing, winking. That kind of thing just makes you even more frustrated, right? And I thought that stupid thing needs to see my affect. And if it's going to be intelligent, which Microsoft researchers had worked really hard on, it actually had some of the most sophisticated AI in it at the time. That thing's going to actually be smart.

It needs to respond to me and you. And we can send it very different signals. So, by the way, just a quick interruption, the Clippy, maybe it's in Word 95 and 98. I don't know, but when it was born, but many people, do you find yourself with that reference that people recognize what you're talking about still to this point? I don't expect the newest students to these days,

but I've mentioned it to a lot of audiences, like how many of you know this Clippy thing and still the majority people seem to know it. So Clippy kind of looks at maybe natural language processing what you were typing and tries to help you complete, I think I don't even remember what Clippy was except annoying. Yeah, it's right. Some people actually liked it. I would hear those stories. You miss it? Well, I missed the annoyance. They felt like there's a, there's an element. Someone was there.

Somebody was there and we're in it together. They were annoying. It's like a puppy that just doesn't get it. They keep stripping up the college company. And in fact, they could have done it smarter like a puppy. If they had done, like, if when you yelled at it or cursed at it, if it had put its little ears back and it's tailed down and shirked off, probably people would have wanted it back, right? But instead, when you yelled at it, what did it do?

It smiled, it winked, it danced, right? If somebody comes to my office and I yelled at them, they started smiling, winking and dancing. I'm like, I never want to see you again. So Bill Gates got a standing ovation when he said it was going away, because people were so ticked. It was so emotionally unintelligent, right? It was intelligent about whether you're writing a letter,

what kind of help you needed for that context. It was completely unintelligent about, hey, if you're annoying your customer, don't smile in their face when you do it. So that kind of mismatch was something the developers just didn't think about. And intelligence at the time was really all about math and language and chess and games, problems that could be pretty well defined. Social-emotional interaction is much more complex than chess or go or any of the games that people are trying to solve

and in order to understand that required skills that most people in computer science actually were lacking personally. Well let's talk about computer science if things got better since the work, since the message, since you've really launched a field with a lot of research work since the work, since the message, since you've really launched a field with a lot of research work in the space, I still find as a person like yourself who's deeply passionate about human beings and yet MN Computer Science, there still seems to be a lack of, sorry to say empathy in as computer scientists. Yeah, well, or as in gotten better but let's just say there's a lot more

variety among computer scientists these days. It's computer scientists are much more diverse group today than they were 25 years ago. And that's good. We need all kinds of people to become computer scientists so that computer science reflects more of what society needs. And, you know, there's brilliance among every personality type. So it need not be limited to people who prefer computers to other people. How hard do you think it is? How your view of how difficult it is to recognize a motion

or to create a deeply emotionally intelligent interaction has it gotten easier or harder as you've explored it further. And how far away are we from cracking this? If you think of the touring tests solving the intelligence, looking at the touring tests for emotional intelligence. I think it is as difficult as I thought it was going to be. I think my prediction of its difficulties spot on. I think the time estimates are always hard

because they're always a function of society's love and hate of a particular topic. If society gets excited and you get hundreds of thousands of researchers working for a certain application. That application gets solved really quickly. The general intelligence, the computer's complete lack of ability to have awareness of what it's doing, the fact that it's not conscious, the fact that there's no signs of it becoming conscious, the fact that it doesn't read between the fact that there's no signs of it becoming conscious,

the fact that it doesn't read between the lines, those kinds of things that we have to teach it explicitly, what other people pick up implicitly. We don't see that changing yet, there aren't breakthroughs yet that lead us to believe that that's going to go any faster, which means that it's still going to be kind of stuck with a lot of limitations where it's probably only going to do the right thing in very limited, narrow, pre-specified context, where we can prescript, prescribe pretty much what's going to happen there. So I don't see the, you know, it's hard to predict a date because when people don't work on it, it's infinite. When everybody works on it, you get a nice piece of it, you know, well-solved in a short amount of time. I actually think there's a more important issue right now than

the difficulty of it. And that's causing some of us to put the brakes on a little bit. Usually we're all just like step on the gas. let's go faster. This is causing us to pull back and put the brakes on. And that's the way that some of this technology is being used in places like China right now. And that worries me so deeply that it's causing me to pull back myself on a lot of the things that we could be doing, and try to get the community to think a little bit more about, okay, if we're going to go forward with that, how can we do it in a way that puts in place safeguards that protects people? So the technology we're referring to is just when a computer senses the human being, like the human face.

Yeah. Just when a computer senses the human being like the human face. Yeah, yeah, so what there's a lot of exciting Things there like forming a deep connection with the human being, but so what are your worries? How that could go wrong? Is it in terms of privacy? Is it in terms of? Other kinds of more subtle privacy. So here in the US if I'm watching a video of say a political leader and and in the US we're quite free as we all know to even criticize the you know the president of the United States right here that's not a shocking thing it happens you know about every five seconds right but in China what happens if you criticize the leader of the government?

And so people are very careful not to do that. However, what happens if you're simply watching a video and you make a facial expression that shows a little bit of skepticism? Well, here we're completely free to do that. In fact, we're free to fly off the handle and say anything we want, usually. I mean, there are some restrictions, you know, when the athlete does this as part of the national broadcast, maybe the teams get a little unhappy about picking that forum to do it, right? But that's more a question of judgment.

We have these freedoms, and in places that don't have those freedoms, what if our technology can read your underlying affective state? What if our technology can read it even non-contact? What if our technology can read it without your prior consent? And here in the US, in my first company, we started affectiva, we have worked super hard to turn away money and opportunities that try to read

people's affect without their prior informed consent. And even the software that is licensable, you have to sign things saying you will only use it in certain ways, which essentially is get people's buy-in, right? Don't do this without people agreeing to it. There are other countries where they're not interested in people's buy-in, they're just gonna use it, they're gonna inflict it on you. And if you don't like it, you better not

scowl in the direction of any sensors. So one, let me just comment on a small tangent. Do you know with the idea of adversarial examples and deep fakes and so on. Yeah. What you bring up is actually, in that one-sense deep fakes provide a comforting protection that you can no longer really trust that the video of your face was legitimate and therefore you always have an escape clause if a government is trying if a stable, balanced, ethical government is trying to accuse you of something at least you have protection you can say was fake news as a popular term now.

Yeah, that's the general thinking of it. We know how to go into the video and see, for example, your heart rate and respiration and whether or not they've been tampered with. And we also can put fake heart rate and respiration in your video. Now, we decided we needed to do that like fake heart rate and respiration in your video. Now, we decided we needed to do that after we developed a way to extract it. We decided we also needed a way to jam it. And so the fact that we took time to do that other step too, right, that was time

that I wasn't spending making the machine more affectively intelligent. And there's a choice in how we spend our time, which is now being swayed a little bit less by this goal and a little bit more like by concern about what's happening in society and what kind of future do we want to build. And as we step back and say, okay, we don't just build AI to build AI to make Elon Musk more money or to make Amazon Jeff Bezos more money. You could gush. That's the wrong ethic.

Why are we building it? What is the point of building AI? It used to be, it was driven by researchers in academia to get papers published and to make a career for themselves and to do something cool, right? Because maybe it could be done. Now we realize that this is enabling rich people to get vastly richer. The poor are the divide is even larger. And is that the kind of future that we want? Maybe we want to think about, maybe we want to rethink AI AI, maybe want to rethink the problems in society that are causing the greatest inequity and rethink how to build AI that's not about a general

intelligence, but that's about extending the intelligence and capability that have nots so that we close these gaps in society. Do you hope that kind of stepping on the break happens organically? Because I think still, majority of the force behind AI is the desire to publish papers is to make money without thinking about the why. Do you hope it happens organically? Is there room for regulation? Is... Yeah, yeah, yeah, great questions.

I prefer the, you know, they talk about the carrot versus the stick. I definitely prefer the carrot to the stick. And, you know, in our free world, we, there's only so much stick, right? You're going to find a way around it. I generally think less regulation is better. That said, even though my position is classically carrot, no stick, no regulation, I think we do need some regulations in this space. I do think we need regulations around protecting people with their data that you own your data, not Amazon, not Google.

I would like to see people own their own data. I would also like to see the regulations that we have right now around lie detection being extended to emotion recognition in general. That right now you can't use a lie detector on an employee when you're on a candidate when you're interviewing them for a job. I think similarly we need to put in place protection around reading people's emotions without their consent and in certain cases like characterizing them for a job and other opportunities.

So, I also think that when we're reading a motion that's predictive around mental health, that that should, even though it's not medical data, that that should get the kinds of protections that our medical data gets. What most people don't know yet is right now with your smartphone use and if you're wearing a sensor and you want to learn about your stress and your sleep and your physical activity and how much you're using your phone and your social interaction. All of that non-medical data, when we put it together with machine learning, now called AI, even though the founders of AI wouldn't have called it that, that capability cannot only tell that you're calm right now or that you're getting a little

stressed, but it can also predict how you're likely to be tomorrow. If you're likely to be sick or healthy, happy or sad, stressed or calm. Especially when you're tracking data over time. Especially when we're tracking a week of your data or more. Do you have an optimism towards, you know, lot of people on our on our phones are worried about this camera that's looking at us? For the most part on balance Do you are you optimistic about the benefits that can be brought from that camera that's looking at billions of us or Should we be more worried? I think we

Should be a little bit more worried about who's looking at us and listening to us. The device sitting on your countertop and your kitchen, whether it's Alexa or Google Home or Apple, Siri, these devices want to listen while they say ostensibly to help us. And I think there are great people in these companies who do want to help people. Let me not brand them all bad. I'm a user of products from all of these companies. I'm naming all the A companies, Alphabet, Apple, Amazon. They are awfully big companies, right?

They have incredible power. And, you know, what if China were to buy them, right? And suddenly, all of that data were not part of free America. But all of that data were part of somebody who just wants to take over the world and you submit to them. And guess what happens if you so much as smirk the wrong way when they say something that you don't like?

Well, they have re-education camps, right? That's a nice word for them. By the way, they have a surplus of organs for people who have surgery these days. They don't have an organ donation problem because they take your blood and they know you're a match. And the doctors are on record of taking organs They don't have an organ donation problem because they take your blood and they know you're a match. And the doctors are on record of taking organs from people who are perfectly healthy and not

prisoners. They're just simply not the favored ones of the government. And you know, that's a pretty freaky evil society. And we can use the word evil there. I was born in the Soviet Union. I can certainly connect to the to the worry that you're expressing. At the same time, probably both you and I and you very much so, you know, there's an exciting possibility that you can have a deep connection with the machine.

Yeah, yeah. So those of us, I've admitted students who say that they, when you list like, who do you most wish you could have lunch with or dinner with, right? And they'll write like, I don't like people. I just like computers. And one of them said to me once when I had this party at my house, I want you to know, this is my only social

event of the year, my one social event of the year. Like, OK, now this is a brilliant machine learning person, right? And we need that kind of brilliance in machine learning. And I love that computer science welcomes people, who love people, and people who are very awkward around people. I love that this is a field that anybody could join. We need all kinds of people and you don't need to be a social person. I'm not

trying to force people who don't like people to suddenly become social. At the same time, if most of the people building the AIs of the future are the kind of people who don't like people, we've got a little bit of a problem. Hold on a second. So let me push back on that. So don't you think a large percentage of the world can, you know, there's loneliness. There is a huge problem with loneliness and scrolling. And so there's a longing for connection. Do you... If you're lonely, you're part of a big

and growing group. Yes. So we're in it together, I guess. If you're alone, you're alone. You're not alone. That's a good line. But do you think there's a, you talked about some more, but do you think there's an exciting possibility that something like Alexa and these kinds of tools can alleviate that loneliness in a way that other humans can't. Yeah, definitely. I mean, a great book can kind of alleviate loneliness, right, because you just get sucked into this amazing story and you can't wait to go spend time with that character, right? And they're not a human character, there is a human behind it. But yeah, it can be an incredibly delightful way to pass the hours.

And it can meet needs, even, you know, I don't read those trashy romance books, but somebody does, right? And what are they getting from this? Well, probably some of that feeling of being there, right? Being there in that social moment, that romantic moment, or connecting with somebody. I've had a similar experience reading some science fiction books, right? And connecting with the character, or some Scott Card, you know, just amazing writing and Inters game

and speaker for the dead, terrible title. But there's kind of books that pull you into a character and you feel like you can you feel very social. It's very connected even though it's not responding to you. And a computer of course can respond to you. So it can deepen it, right? You can have a very deep connection much more than the movie her you know plays up right much more I mean movie her is already a pretty pretty deep connection right well but it but it's just a movie right it's scripted it's just you know but I I mean like there can be a real interaction where the character can learn and you can

learn you could imagine it not just being you and one character, you could imagine a group of characters, you could imagine a group of people and characters, human and AI connecting, where maybe a few people can't, can't sort of be friends with everybody, but the few people and their AI's can be friend more people. There can be an extended human intelligence in there where each human can connect with more people that way. But it's still very limited. But there are just, what I mean is there are many more

possibilities than what's in that movie. So there's a tension here. So one you express a really serious concern about privacy about how governments can misuse the information, and there's the possibility of this connection. So let's look at Alexa. So a personal assistance. For the most part, as far as I'm aware, they ignore your emotion, they ignore even the context or the existence of you, the intricate, beautiful, complex aspects of who you are, except maybe aspects of your voice that help it recognize for speech recognition.

Do you think they should move towards trying to understand your emotion? All of these companies are very interested in understanding human emotion. They want more people are telling Siri every day they want to kill themselves. They, Apple wants to know the difference between if a person is really suicidal versus if a person is just kind of fooling around with Siri. Right? The words may be the same, the tone of voice, and what surrounds those words is pivotal to understand if they should respond in a very serious way, bring help to that person, or if they should jokingly tease back, you just want to sell me for something else.

How do you respond when somebody says that? Well, you do want to err on the side of being careful and taking it seriously. People want to know if the person is happy or stressed. In part, well, so let me give you an altruistic reason and a business profit motivated reason. And there are people and companies that operate on both principles. The altruistic people really care about their customers and really care about helping you feel a little better at the end of the day. And it would just make those people happy if they knew that they made your life better. If you came home stressed and after talking with their product, you felt better.

There are other people who maybe have studied the way affect, affect decision-making and prices people pay. And they know, I don't know if I should tell you, like the work of Jen Learner, on heartstrings and perstrings. If we manipulate you into a slightly sadder mood, you'll pay more. You'll pay more to change your situation. You'll pay more for something you don't even need to make yourself feel better. So, if they sound a little sad, I don't want to cheer them up. Maybe first I want to help them get something, little shopping therapy, right, that helps them. Which is really difficult for a company

that's primarily funded on advertisements. So they are encouraged to get you to offer you products or Amazon that's primarily funded on you buying things from their store. So I think we should be, you know, maybe we need regulation in the future to put a little bit of a wall between these agents that have access to our emotion

and agents that want to sell us stuff. Maybe there needs to be a little bit more of a firewall in between this. So maybe digging in a little bit on the interaction with Alexa. You mentioned, of course, a really serious concern about like recognizing emotion if somebody is speaking of suicide or depression and so on, but what about the actual interaction itself? Do you think so if I you mentioned clippy and being annoying What is the objective function we're trying to optimize is it minimize anointness or minimize or maximize happiness? Or both, if we look at human and human relations, I think that push and pull, the tension, the dance, you

know, the annoying, the flaws, that's what makes it fun. So is there a room for, like what is the object to function? I mean, at times when you want to have a little push and pull, think of kids sparring, right? Exactly. I see my sons, and one of them wants to provoke the other to be upset, and that's fun. And it's actually healthy to learn where your limits are, to learn how to self-regulate.

You can imagine a game where it's trying to make you mad, and you're trying to show self-control. And so if we're doing a AI human interaction that's helping build resilience and self-control, whether it's to learn how to not be a bully or how to turn the other cheek or how to deal with an abusive person in your life, then you might need an AI that pushes your buttons. But in general, do you want an AI that pushes your buttons? But in general, do you want an AI that pushes your buttons? Probably depends on your personality. I don't. I want one that's respectful, that is there to serve me,

and that is there to extend my ability to do things. I'm not looking for a rival, I'm looking for a helper. And that's the kind of AI I'd put my money on. Your senses for the majority of people in the world in order to have a rich experience, that's what they're looking for as well. So they're not looking, if you look at the movie, her spoiler alert, I believe the program,

the woman in the movie, her, leaves the person for somebody else, says they don't want to be dating anymore. Right, like, do you, your sense is if Alexa said, you know what, I'm actually had enough of you for a while, so I'm going to shut myself off. You don't see that as I'd say your trash, because I'm paid for you, right? Okay. We got to remember, and this is where this blending human AI, as if we're equals, is really deceptive, because AI is something at the end of the day

that my students and I are making in the lab and we're choosing what It's allowed to say when it's allowed to speak what it's allowed to listen to What it's allowed to act on given the inputs that we choose to expose it to what outputs. It's allowed to have It's all Something made by a human. And if we want to make something that makes our lives miserable, fine, I wouldn't invest in it

as a business, unless it's just there for self-regulation training. But I think we need to think about what kind of future we want. And actually your question, I really like the, what is the objective function? Is it to calm people down? Sometimes is it to always make people happy and calm them down?

Well, there was a book about that right the brave new world, you know make everybody happy Take your Soma if you're unhappy take your happy pill and if you refuse to take your happy pill Well, we'll we'll threaten you by sending you to Iceland To live there. I lived in Iceland three years. It's a great place. Don't take your happy pill, well, we'll threaten you by sending you to Iceland. To live there, I lived in Iceland three years. It's a great place. Don't take your summer. They go to Iceland. A little TV commercial there. Now, I was a child there for a few years.

It's a wonderful place. So that part of the book never scared me. But really, do we want AI to manipulate us into submission and to making us happy? Well, if you are a power-obsessed, sick, dictator, individual who only wants to control other people to get your jollies in life, then yeah, you want to use AI to extend your power in your scale to force people into submission. If you believe that the human race is better off being given freedom and the opportunity to do things that might surprise you, then you want to use AI to extend people's ability

to build, you want to build AI that extends human intelligence, that empowers the weak and helps balance the power between the weak and the strong, not that gives more power to the strong. So in this process of empowering people and sensing people, what is your sense on emotion in terms of recognizing emotion, the difference between emotion that is shown and emotion that is felt. So yeah, emotion that is expressed on the surface through your face, your body, and various other things, and what's actually going on deep inside and the biological level on the neuroscience level or some kind of cognitive

level. Yeah. Yeah. Whoa, no easy questions here. Well, I, yeah, I'm sure there's no there's no definite answer But what's your sense how far can we get by just looking at the face? We're very limited when we just look at the face, but we can get further than most people think we can get people Think hey, I have a great poker face. Therefore all you're ever going to get from me is neutral. Well, that's naive. We can read with the ordinary camera on your laptop or on your phone. We can read from a neutral face if your heart is racing.

We can read from a neutral face if your breathing is becoming irregular and showing signs of stress. We can read under some conditions that maybe I won't give you details on, how your heart rate variability power is changing that could be a sign of stress even when your heart rate is not necessarily accelerating. So from the zero sensors from the face, from the color changes that you cannot even see but the camera can see

That's amazing. So so you can get a lot of signal, but so we get things people can't see right using a regular camera and From that we can tell things about your stress. So if You were just sitting there with a blank face thinking nobody can read my emotion while you're wrong You were just sitting there with a blank face thinking nobody can read my emotion while you're wrong Right, so that's really interesting, but that's from sort of visual information from the face. That's almost like cheating your way to the physiological state of the body by being very clever with what you can do with visual processing. So that's really impressive But if you just look at the stuff we humans can see It's really impressive, but if you just look at the stuff we humans can see, the poke of the smile, the smirk, the subtle, all the facial acts.

So then you can hide that on your face for a limited amount of time. Now, if you're just going in for a brief interview and you're hiding it, that's pretty easy for most people. If you are, however, surveilled constantly everywhere you go, then it's gonna say, gee, you know, Lex used to smile a lot, and now I'm not seeing so many smiles. And Roz used to laugh a lot,

and smile a lot very spontaneously, and now I'm only seeing these, not so spontaneous looking smiles, and only when she's asked these questions. You know, that's something that's changed. Probably not getting enough sleep. We could look at that too. So now I have to be a little careful too.

When I say we, you think we can't read your emotion and we can, it's not that binary. What we're reading is more some physiological changes that relate to your activation. Now that doesn't mean that we know everything about how you feel. In fact, we still know very little about how you feel. Your thoughts are still private. Your nuanced feelings are still completely private. We can't read any of that. So there's some relief that we can't read that.

Even brain imaging can't read that. Wear we can't read that. Even brain imaging can't read that. Wearables can't read that. However, as we read your body state changes and we know what's going on in your environment and we look at patterns of those over time, we can start to make some inferences about what you might be feeling. And that is where it's not just the momentary feeling,

but it's more your stance toward things. And that could actually be a little bit more scary with certain kinds of governmental control-free people who want to know more about, are you on their team or are you not? And getting that information through over time. So you're saying there's a lot of stuff by looking at the change over time.

Yeah. So you've done a lot of exciting work both in computer vision and physiological sense like wearables. What do you think is the best modality for... What's the best window to the emotional soul? Like, is it the face? Is it the face? Is it the voice? It depends what you want to know.

It depends what you want to know. Everything is informative. Everything we do is informative. So for health and well-being and things like that, do you find the wearable physiotechnics? So measuring physiological signals is the best for health-based stuff. So here I'm going to answer empirically with data and studies we've been doing. We've been doing studies now. These are currently running with lots of different kinds of people, but where we've published

data and I can speak publicly to it, the data are limited right now to New England College students. So that's a small group. Among New England College students, when they are wearing a wearable, like the Empatic Embrace here, that's measuring skin conductance, movement, temperature, and when they are using a smartphone that is collecting their time of day of when they're texting, who they're texting, their movement around it, their GPS,

the weather information based upon their location. And when it's using machine learning and putting all of that together and looking not just at right now, but looking at your rhythm of behaviors over about a week. When we look at that, we are very accurate at forecasting tomorrow's stress, mood, and happy sad mood, and health. And when we look at which pieces of that are most useful, first of all, if you have all the pieces, you

get the best results. If you have only the the pieces, you get the best results. If you have only the wearable, you get the next best results. And that's still better than 80% accurate at forecasting tomorrow's levels. It's not exciting because the wearable stuff with physiological information, it feels like it violates privacy less than the non-contact face-based methods. Yeah, it's interesting. I think what people sometimes don't, you know, it's fine.

The early days people would say, oh, wearing something or giving blood is invasive, right? Whereas a camera is less invasive because it's not touching you. I think on the contrary, the things that are not touching you are maybe the scariest because you don't know when they're on or off. And you don't know when and you don't know who's behind it, right? A wearable depending upon what's happening to the data on it, if it's just stored locally or if it's streaming and what it is being attached to in a sense you have the most control over it because it's also very easy to just take it off.

Right. Now it's not sensing me. So if I'm uncomfortable with what it's sensing, now I'm free. If I'm comfortable with what it's sensing, then I happen to know everything about this one and what it's doing with it, so I'm quite comfortable with it. Then I have control. I'm comfortable. Control is one of the biggest factors for an individual in reducing their stress. If I have control over it, if I know others to know about it, then my stress is a lot lower

and I'm making an informed choice about whether to wear it or not or win to wear it or not. I wanna wear it sometimes, maybe not others. Right, so that control, yeah, I'm with you, that control, even if, yeah, the ability to turn it off, that is a really empowering thing. It's huge. And we need to maybe, you know, if there's regulations,

maybe that's number one to protect, is people's ability to, is easy to opt out as to opt in. So you've studied a bit of neuroscience as well. How live looking at our own minds, sort of the biological stuff, or the neurobiological, the neuroscience to get the signals in our brain, how do you understand the problem and the approach of effective computing? Originally, I was a computer architect. I was building hardware and computer designs, and I wanted to build ones that work like the brain. So I've been studying the brain as long as I've been studying

how to build computers. Have you figured out anything yet? Very little. It's so amazing. You know, they used to think like, oh, if you remove this chunk of the brain and you find this function goes away, well, that's the part of the brain that did it.

And then later they realized, if you remove this other chunk of the brain, that function comes back and, oh no, we really don't understand it. Brains are so interesting and changing all the time and able to change in ways that will probably continue to surprise us. When we were measuring stress, you may know the story where we found an unusual big skin conductance pattern on one wrist and one of our kids with autism. And in trying to figure out how on earth you could be stressed on one wrist and not the other. How can you get sweaty on one wrist? When you get stressed with that sympathetic fight or flight response, you kind of should sweat more in some places than others, but not more on one risk than the other. That didn't make any sense.

We learned that what had actually happened was a part of his brain had unusual electrical activity, and that caused an unusually large sweat response on one risk and not the other. And since then we've learned that seizures cause this unusual electrical activity, and depending where the seizure is, if it's in one place and it's staying there, you can have a big electrical response we can pick up with a wearable at one part of the body. You can also have a seizure that spreads over the whole brain, generalized grandmoles seizure, and that response spreads and we can pick it up pretty much anywhere. As we learned this this and then later built

embrace that's now FDA-cleared for seizure detection, we have also built relationships with some of the most amazing doctors in the world who not only help people with unusual brain activity or epilepsy, but some of them are also surgeons and they're going in and they're implanting electrodes, not just to momentarily read the strange patterns of brain activity that we'd like to see return to normal, but also to read out continuously what's happening in some of these deep regions of the brain during most of life when these patients are not seizing. Most of the time they're not seizing. Most of the time they're fine.

And so we are now working on mapping those deep brain regions that you can't even usually get with EEG scalp electrodes because the changes deep inside don't reach the surface. But interesting, when some of those regions are activated, we see a big skin conductance response. Who would have thunk it, right? Like nothing here, but something here. In fact, right? Like nothing here, but something here. In fact,

right after seizures that we think are the most dangerous ones that precede what's called pseudep, sudden unexpected death and epilepsy, there's a period where the brain waves go flat and it looks like the person's brain has stopped, but it hasn't. The activity has gone deep into a region that can make the cortical activity look flat, like a quick shutdown signal here. It can unfortunately cause breathing to stop if it progresses long enough. Before that happens, we see a big skin conductance response in the data that we have. The longer this flattening, the bigger our response here. So we have been trying to learn, you know, initially like, why?

Why are we getting a big response here when there's nothing here? Well, it turns out there's something much deeper. So we can now go inside the brains of some of these individuals, fabulous people who usually aren't seizing and get this data and start to map it. So that's the active research that we're doing right now with top medical partners. So this wearable sensor, this looking skin conductance can capture sort of the ripples of the

complexity of what's going on in our brain. So this little device, you have a hope that you can start to get the signal from the interesting things happening in the brain. Yeah, we've already published the strong correlations between the size of this response and the flattening that happens afterwards. And unfortunately also in a real suitup case where the patient died because the, well, we don't know why. We don't know if somebody was there, it would have definitely prevented it. But we know that most suitups happen when the person's alone.

And in this case, a suitup is an acronym, SUDP. And it stands for the number two cause of years of life lost, actually, among all neurological disorders. Stroke is number one. Suitup is number two, but most people haven't heard of it. Actually, I've plugged my TED talk. It's on the front page of TED right now that talks about this. And we hope to change that. I hope everybody who's heard of SIDS and Stroke will now hear of SUDEP because we think in most cases it's preventable

if people take their meds and aren't alone when they have a seizure. Not guaranteed to be preventable. There are some exceptions, but we think most cases probably are. So you have this embrace now in version two, wristband, right? For epilepsy management. That's the one that's FDA approved. Yes. Which is kind of a credit.

FDA cleared, cleared. Sorry, if not. It's okay. It essentially means it's approved for marketing. Got it. Just a side note, how difficult is that to do? I'm a credit. I'm a credit. I'm a credit. I'm a credit. I'm a credit. I'm a credit. I'm a credit. I'm a credit. I'm a credit. I'm a credit.

I'm a credit. I'm a credit. I'm a credit. I'm a credit. I'm a credit. I'm a credit. I'm a credit. I'm a credit.

I'm a credit. I'm a credit. I'm a credit. I'm a credit. I'm a credit. I'm a credit. I'm a credit. I'm a credit. I'm a credit. I'm a credit. I'm a credit. I'm a credit. Yeah, we published peer-reviewed top medical journal neurology best results and that's not good enough for the FDA.

Is that system? So if we look at the peer review of medical journals, there's flaws, the strengths, is the FDA approval process. How does it compare to the peer review process? Is it have this strength and that we- I take peer review over FDA any day. But is that a good thing? Is that a good thing for FDA? Are you saying, does it stop some amazing technology from getting through? Yeah, it does. The FDA performs a very important good role in keeping people safe. They keep things, they put you through tons of safety testing. And that's wonderful. And that's great. I'm all in favor of the safety testing.

Sometimes they put you through additional testing that they don't have to explain why they put you through it and you don't understand why you're going through it and it doesn't make sense. And that's very frustrating. And maybe they have really good reasons and they just would do people a service to articulate those reasons. Be more transparent.

Be more transparent. So as part of Empatica, you have sensors. So what kind of problems can we crack? What kind of things from seizures to autism to I think of her, you mentioned depression. What kind of things can we alleviate, can we detect? What's your hope of how we can make a world a better place with this horrible tech? I would really like to see my

fellow brilliant researchers step back and say, you know, what are the really hard problems that we don't know how to solve that come from people? Maybe we don't even see in our normal life because they're living in the poorer places. They're stuck on the bus. They're they can't even afford the Uber or the lift or the data plan or all these other Wonderful things we have that we keep improving on. Meanwhile, there's all these folks left behind in the world and we have that we keep improving on. Meanwhile, there's all these folks left behind in the world. And they're struggling with horrible diseases, with depression, with epilepsy, with diabetes, with just awful stuff that maybe a little more time and attention hanging out with them

and learning what are their challenges in life, what are their needs? How do we help them have job skills? How do we help them have a hope in a future and a chance to have the great life that so many of us building technology have? And then how would that reshape the kinds of AI that we build? How would that reshape the new apps that we build? Or maybe we need to focus on how to make things more low cost and green instead of $1,000 phones. I mean, come on.

You know, why can't we be thinking more about things that do more with less for these books? Quality of life is not related to the cost of your phone. You know, it's not something that, you know, it's been shown that what about $75,000 of income and happiness is the same. However, I can tell you you get a lot of happiness from helping other people. You get a lot more than $75,000 buys. How do we connect up the people who have real needs with the people who have the ability to build the future?

And build the kind of future that truly improves the lives of all the people that are currently being left behind. So, let me return just briefly on a point, maybe in movie her. So, do you think if we look farther into the future, you say so much of the benefit from making our technology more empathetic to us human beings would make them better tools empower us make make our lives better. If we look farther into the future, do you think we'll ever create an AI system that we can fall in love with and loves us back on a level that is similar to

human to human interaction like in movie, her or beyond? I think we can simulate it in ways that could, you know, sustain engagement for a while. Would it be as good as another person? I don't think so for if you're used to, like, good people. Now, if you've just grown up with nothing but abuse and you can't stand human beings, can we do something that helps you there that gives you something through a machine? Yeah, that's pretty low bar, right? If you've only encountered pretty awful people. If you've encountered

wonderful, amazing people, we're nowhere near building anything like that. And I'm, I would not bet on building it. I would bet instead on building the kinds of AI that helps, helps kind of raise all boats that helps all people be better people, helps all people figure out if they're getting sick tomorrow and helps give them what they need to stay well tomorrow. That's the kind of AI I want to build that improves human lives. Not the kind of AI that want to build that improves human lives. Not the kind of AI that just walks on the tonight show and people go, wow, look how smart that is. You know, really, like, and then it goes back in a box, you know?

So on that point, if we continue looking a little bit into the future, do you think an AI that's empathetic and does improve our lives need to have a physical presence of body? And even, let me cautiously say the C word consciousness and even fear of mortality. So some of those human characteristics, do you think it needs to have those aspects or can it remain simply a machine learning tool that learns from data of behavior that learns to make us based on previous patterns, feel better, or doesn't need those elements of consciousness.

It depends on your goals. If you're making a movie, it needs a body, it needs a gorgeous body. It needs to act like it has consciousness. It needs to act like it has emotion, right? Because that's what sells. That's what's gonna get me to show up and enjoy the movie. Okay. In real life, does it need all that? Well, if you've read Orson Scott Card,

Ender's Game, Speaker for the Dead, you know, it could just be like a little voice in your earring, right? And you could have an intimate relationship and it could get to know you. And it doesn't be like a little voice in your earring, right? And you could have an intimate relationship and it could get to know you. And it doesn't need to be a robot. But that doesn't make this compelling of a movie, right?

I mean, we already think it's kind of weird when a guy looks like he's talking to himself on the train, you know, even though it's earbuds. So we have these embodied is more powerful embodied when you compare interactions with an embodied robot versus a video of a robot versus no robot. The robot is more engaging, the robot gets our attention more. The robot when you walk in your house is more likely to get you to remember to do the things that you asked it to do because it's kind of got a physical presence. You can avoid it if you don't like it. It could see you're avoiding it.

There's a lot of power to being embodied. There will be embodied AIs. They have great power and opportunity and potential. There will also be AIs that aren't embodied that just our little software assistance that help us with different things that make it to know things about us. Will they be conscious? There will be attempts to program them to make them appear to be conscious. We can already write programs that make it look like, what do you mean?

Of course, I'm aware that you're there, right? I mean, it's trivial to say stuff like that. It's easy to fool people, but does it actually have conscious experience like we do? Nobody has a clue how to do that yet. That seems to be something that is beyond what any of us knows, how to build now. Will it have to have that? I think you can get pretty far with a lot of stuff without it. I think you can get pretty far with a lot of stuff without it. Will we accord it rights? Well that's more a political game that it is a question of real consciousness.

Yeah, can you go to jail for turning off Alexa? It's a question for an election maybe a few decades from now. Well, so fear robots already been given rights as a citizen in Saudi Arabia, right? Even before women have full rights, then the robot was still put back in the box to be shipped to the next place where it would get a paid appearance, right? Yeah, it's dark and almost comedic, if not absurd. So I've heard you speak about your journey in finding faith. Sure.

And how you discovered some wisdom about life and beyond from reading the Bible. And I've also heard you say that you said scientists too often assume that nothing exists beyond what can be currently measured. So materialism. Materialism and scientism. Yeah. So in some sense, this assumption enables

the near term scientific method, assuming that we can uncover the mysteries of this world by the mechanisms of measurement that we currently have. But we easily forget that we've made this assumption. So what do you think we miss out on by making that assumption? It's fine to limit the scientific method to things we can measure and reason about and reproduce. That's fine. I think we have to recognize that sometimes we scientists

also believe in things that happen historically. Like I believe the Holocaust happened. I can't prove events from past history scientifically. You prove them with historical evidence, right? With the impact they had on people, with eyewitness testimony and things like that. So a good thinker recognizes that science is one of many ways to get knowledge. It's not the only way.

And there's been some really bad philosophy and bad thinking recently, call it scientism, where people say science is the only way to get to truth. And it's not, it just isn't. There are other ways that work also, like knowledge of love with someone. You don't prove your love through science, right? So history, philosophy, love, a lot of other things in life, show us that there's more ways to gain knowledge and truth if you're willing to believe there is

such a thing, and I believe there is, then science. I do, I am a scientist, however, and in my science, I do limit my science to the things that the scientific method can do. But I recognize that it's myopic to say that that's all there is. Right, there's just like you listed, there's all the why questions. And really, we know, if we're being honest with ourselves, the percent of what we really know is basically zero relative to the full mystery of the measure theory, the set of measure zero. If I have a finite amount of knowledge, which I do.

So you said that you believe in truth. So let me ask that old question. What do you think this thing is all about? It's the life on earth. Life, the universe and everything. I can't. I can't put Douglas Adams 42. My favorite number. By the way, that's my street address. My husband and I guessed the exact same number for our house.

We got to pick it. And there's a reason we picked 42. Yeah. So is it just 42 or is there, do you have other words that you can put around it? Well, I think there's a grand adventure and I think this life is a part of it. I think there's a lot more to it than meets the eye and the heart and the mind and the soul here. I think we see but through a glass dimly in this life. We see only a part of all there is to know. If people haven't read the Bible, they should, if they consider themselves educated, and you could read Proverbs and find tremendous wisdom in there that cannot be scientifically proven, but when you read it, there's something in you, like a musician knows when the instruments played right, and it's beautiful. There's something in you that comes alive and knows that there's a truth there, that's like your strings are being plucked by the master instead of by me.

Right, playing when I pluck it, but probably when you play it sounds spectacular, right? And when you encounter those truths, there's something in you that sings and knows that there is more than what I can prove mathematically or program a computer to do. Don't get me wrong, the math is gorgeous, the computer programming can be brilliant, it's inspiring, right? We want to do more. None of this squashes my desire to do science or to get knowledge through science.

I'm not I'm not dissing the science at all. I grow even more in awe of what the science can do because I'm more in awe of all there is we don't know and Really at the heart of science you have to have a belief that there's truth that there's something greater to be discovered and Some scientists may not want to use the faith word, but it's faith that drives us to do science It's faith that there is truth do science. It's faith that there is truth, that there's something to know that we don't know, that it's worth knowing, that it's worth working hard, and that there is meaning, that there is such a thing as

meaning, which by the way, science can't prove either. We have to kind of start with some assumptions that there's things like truth and meaning. And these are really questions philosophers own, right? This is their space, philosophers and theologians at some level. So these are things science, you know, if we, when people claim that science will tell you all truth, that's, there's a name for that. It's its own kind of faith, it's scientism, and it's very myopic. Yeah, there's a much bigger world out there to be explored in ways that science may not, at least for now, allows to explore. Yeah, and there's meaning and purpose and hope and joy and love and all these awesome things that make it all worthwhile too. I don't think there's a better way

to end it Ross. Thank you so much for talking today. Thanks, Lex. It was a pleasure. Great questions. you