The following is a conversation with David Patterson, touring award winner and professor

of computer science at Berkeley. He's known for pioneering contributions to RISC processor

architecture used by 99% of new chips today and for co creating RAID storage. The impact that

these two lines of research and development have had in our world is immeasurable. He's also one of

the great educators of computer science in the world. His book with John Hennessy is how I first

learned about and was humbled by the inner workings of machines at the lowest level.

This episode is supported by the Jordan Harbinger Show.

Go to Jordan Harbinger.com slash Lex. It's how he knows I sent you on that page. There's links

to subscribe to it on Apple podcast, Spotify, and everywhere else. I've been binging on this podcast.

It's amazing. Jordan is a great human being. He gets the best out of his guests, dives deep,

calls them out when it's needed, and makes the whole thing fun to listen to. He's interviewed

Kobe Bryant, Mark Cuban, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Garry Kasparov, and many more. I recently listened

to his conversation with Frank Abagnale, author of Catch Me If You Can, and one of the world's

most famous con men. Perfect podcast length and topic for a recent long distance run that I did.

Again, go to Jordan Harbinger.com slash Lex to give him my love and to support this podcast.

Subscribe also on Apple podcast, Spotify, and everywhere else.

This show is presented by Cash App, the greatest sponsor of this podcast ever, and the number one

finance app in the App Store. When you get it, use code LEX PODCAST. Cash App lets you send money

to friends, buy Bitcoin, and invest in the stock market with as little as $1. Since Cash App allows

you to buy Bitcoin, let me mention that cryptocurrency in the context of the history

of money is fascinating. I recommend Ascent of Money as a great book on this history.

Also, the audiobook is amazing. Debits and credits on Ledger started around 30,000 years ago.

The US dollar created over 200 years ago, and the first decentralized cryptocurrency released just

over 10 years ago. So given that history, cryptocurrency is still very much in its early

days of development, but it's still aiming to and just might redefine the nature of money.

So again, if you get Cash App from the App Store or Google Play, and use the code LEX PODCAST,

you get $10, and Cash App will also donate $10 to FIRST, an organization that is helping to

advance robotics and STEM education for young people around the world. And now, here's my

conversation with David Patterson. Let's start with the big historical question. How have computers

changed in the past 50 years at both the fundamental architectural level and in general, in your eyes?

David Patterson Well, the biggest thing that happened was the invention of the microprocessor.

So computers that used to fill up several rooms could fit inside your cell phone. And not only

did they get smaller, they got a lot faster. So they're a million times faster than they were

50 years ago, and they're much cheaper, and they're ubiquitous. There's 7.8 billion people

on this planet. Probably half of them have cell phones right now, which is remarkable.

Soterios Johnson That's probably more microprocessors than there are people.

David Patterson Sure. I don't know what the ratio is,

but I'm sure it's above one. Maybe it's 10 to 1 or some number like that.

Soterios Johnson What is a microprocessor?

David Patterson So a way to say what a microprocessor is,

is to tell you what's inside a computer. So a computer forever has classically had

five pieces. There's input and output, which kind of naturally, as you'd expect, is input is like

speech or typing, and output is displays. There's a memory, and like the name sounds, it remembers

things. So it's integrated circuits whose job is you put information in, then when you ask for it,

it comes back out. That's memory. And the third part is the processor, where the microprocessor

comes from. And that has two pieces as well. And that is the control, which is kind of the brain

of the processor. And what's called the arithmetic unit, it's kind of the brawn of the computer. So

if you think of the, as a human body, the arithmetic unit, the thing that does the

number crunching is the body and the control is the brain. So those five pieces, input, output,

memory, arithmetic unit, and control are, have been in computers since the very dawn. And the

last two are considered the processor. So a microprocessor simply means a processor that

fits on a microchip. And that was invented about, you know, 40 years ago, was the first microprocessor.

It's interesting that you refer to the arithmetic unit as the, like you connected to the body and

the controllers of the brain. So I guess, I never thought of it that way. It's a nice way to think

of it because most of the actions the microprocessor does in terms of literally sort of computation,

but the microprocessor does computation. It processes information. And most of the thing it

does is basic arithmetic operations. What are the operations, by the way?

It's a lot like a calculator. So there are add instructions, subtract instructions,

multiply and divide. And kind of the brilliance of the invention of the computer or the processor

is that it performs very trivial operations, but it just performs billions of them per second.

And what we're capable of doing is writing software that can take these very trivial instructions

and have them create tasks that can do things better than human beings can do today.

Just looking back through your career, did you anticipate the kind of how good we would be able

to get at doing these small, basic operations? How many surprises along the way where you just

kind of sat back and said, wow, I didn't expect it to go this fast, this good?

MG Well, the fundamental driving force is what's called Moore's law, which was named after Gordon

Moore, who's a Berkeley alumnus. And he made this observation very early in what are called

semiconductors. And semiconductors are these ideas, you can build these very simple switches,

and you can put them on these microchips. And he made this observation over 50 years ago.

He looked at a few years and said, I think what's going to happen is the number of these little

switches called transistors is going to double every year for the next decade. And he said this

in 1965. And in 1975, he said, well, maybe it's going to double every two years. And that what

other people since named that Moore's law guided the industry. And when Gordon Moore made that

prediction, he wrote a paper back in, I think, in the 70s and said, not only did this going to happen,

he wrote, what would be the implications of that? And in this article from 1965,

he shows ideas like computers being in cars and computers being in something that you would buy

in the grocery store and stuff like that. So he kind of not only called his shot, he called the

implications of it. So if you were in the computing field, and if you believed Moore's prediction,

he kind of said what would be happening in the future. So it's not kind of, it's at one sense,

this is what was predicted. And you could imagine it was easy to believe that Moore's law was going

to continue. And so this would be the implications. On the other side, there are these kind of

shocking events in your life. Like I remember driving in Marin across the Bay in San Francisco

and seeing a bulletin board at a local civic center and it had a URL on it. And it was like,

for the people at the time, these first URLs and that's the, you know, www select stuff with the

HTTP. People thought it looked like alien writing, right? You'd see these advertisements and

commercials or bulletin boards that had this alien writing on it. So for the lay people, it's like,

what the hell is going on here? And for those people in the industry, it was, oh my God,

this stuff is getting so popular, it's actually leaking out of our nerdy world into the real

world. So that, I mean, there was events like that. I think another one was, I remember in the

early days of the personal computer, when we started seeing advertisements in magazines

for personal computers, like it's so popular that it's made the newspapers. So at one hand,

you know, Gordon Moore predicted it and you kind of expected it to happen, but when it really hit

and you saw it affecting society, it was shocking. So maybe taking a step back and looking both

the engineering and philosophical perspective, what do you see as the layers of abstraction

in the computer? Do you see a computer as a set of layers of abstractions?

Dr. Justin Marchegiani Yeah, I think that's one of the things that computer science

fundamentals is the, these things are really complicated in the way we cope with complicated

software and complicated hardware is these layers of abstraction. And that simply means that we,

you know, suspend disbelief and pretend that the only thing you know is that layer,

and you don't know anything about the layer below it. And that's the way we can make very complicated

things. And probably it started with hardware that that's the way it was done, but it's been

proven extremely useful. And, you know, I would say in a modern computer today, there might be

10 or 20 layers of abstraction, and they're all trying to kind of enforce this contract is all

you know is this interface. There's a set of commands that you can, are allowed to use,

and you stick to those commands, and we will faithfully execute that. And it's like peeling

the air layers of a London, of an onion, you get down, there's a new set of layers and so forth.

So for people who want to study computer science, the exciting part about it is you can

keep peeling those layers. You take your first course, and you might learn to program in Python,

and then you can take a follow on course, and you can get it down to a lower level language like C,

and you know, you can go and then you can, if you want to, you can start getting into the hardware

layers, and you keep getting down all the way to that transistor that I talked about that Gordon

Moore predicted. And you can understand all those layers all the way up to the highest level

application software. So it's a very kind of magnetic field. If you're interested, you can go

into any depth and keep going. In particular, what's happening right now, or it's happened

in software the last 20 years and recently in hardware, there's getting to be open source

versions of all of these things. So what open source means is what the engineer, the programmer

designs, it's not secret, the belonging to a company, it's out there on the worldwide web,

so you can see it. So you can look at, for lots of pieces of software that you use, you can see

exactly what the programmer does if you want to get involved. That used to stop at the hardware.

Recently, there's been an effort to make open source hardware and those interfaces open,

so you can see that. So instead of before you had to stop at the hardware, you can now start going

layer by layer below that and see what's inside there. So it's a remarkable time that for the

interested individual can really see in great depth what's really going on in the computers

that power everything that we see around us. Are you thinking also when you say open source at

the hardware level, is this going to the design architecture instruction set level or is it going

to literally the manufacturer of the actual hardware, of the actual chips, whether that's ASIC

specialized to a particular domain or the general? Yeah, so let's talk about that a little bit.

So when you get down to the bottom layer of software, the way software talks to hardware

is in a vocabulary. And what we call that vocabulary, we call that, the words of that

vocabulary are called instructions. And the technical term for the vocabulary is instruction

set. So those instructions are like we talked about earlier, that can be instructions like

add, subtract and multiply, divide. There's instructions to put data into memory, which

is called a store instruction and to get data back, which is called the load instructions.

And those simple instructions go back to the very dawn of computing in 1950, the commercial

computer had these instructions. So that's the instruction set that we're talking about.

So up until, I'd say 10 years ago, these instruction sets were all proprietary. So

a very popular one is owned by Intel, the one that's in the cloud and in all the PCs in the

world. Intel owns that instruction set. It's referred to as the x86. There've been a sequence

of ones that the first number was called 8086. And since then, there's been a lot of numbers,

but they all end in 86. So there's been that kind of family of instruction sets.

And that's proprietary.

That's proprietary. The other one that's very popular is from ARM. That kind of powers all

the cell phones in the world, all the iPads in the world, and a lot of things that are so called

Internet of Things devices. ARM and that one is also proprietary. ARM will license it to people

for a fee, but they own that. So the new idea that got started at Berkeley kind of unintentionally

10 years ago is early in my career, we pioneered a way to do these vocabularies instruction sets

that was very controversial at the time. At the time in the 1980s, conventional wisdom was these

vocabularies instruction sets should have powerful instructions. So polysyllabic kind of words,

you can think of that. And so instead of just add, subtract, and multiply, they would have

polynomial, divide, or sort a list. And the hope was of those powerful vocabularies,

that'd make it easier for software. So we thought that didn't make sense for microprocessors. There

was people at Berkeley and Stanford and IBM who argued the opposite. And what we called that was

a reduced instruction set computer. And the abbreviation was RISC. And typical for computer

people, we use the abbreviation start pronouncing it. So risk was the thing. So we said for

microprocessors, which with Gordon's Moore is changing really fast, we think it's better to have

a pretty simple set of instructions, reduced set of instructions. That that would be a better way

to build microprocessors since they're going to be changing so fast due to Moore's law. And then

we'll just use standard software to cover the use, generate more of those simple instructions. And

one of the pieces of software that's in that software stack going between these layers of

abstractions is called a compiler. And it's basically translates, it's a translator between

levels. We said the translator will handle that. So the technical question was, well, since there

are these reduced instructions, you have to execute more of them. Yeah, that's right. But

maybe you could execute them faster. Yeah, that's right. They're simpler so they could go faster,

but you have to do more of them. So what's that trade off look like? And it ended up that we ended

up executing maybe 50% more instructions, maybe a third more instructions, but they ran four times

faster. So this risk, controversial risk ideas proved to be maybe factors of three or four

better. I love that this idea was controversial and almost kind of like rebellious. So that's

in the context of what was more conventional is the complex instructional set computing. So

how would you pronounce that? CISC. CISC versus risk. Risk versus CISC. And believe it or not,

this sounds very, who cares about this? It was violently debated at several conferences. It's

like, what's the right way to go? And people thought risk was a deevolution. We're going to

make software worse by making those instructions simpler. And there are fierce debates at several

conferences in the 1980s. And then later in the 80s, it kind of settled to these benefits.

It's not completely intuitive to me why risk has, for the most part, won.

Yeah. So why did that happen? Yeah. Yeah. And maybe I can sort of say a bunch of dumb things

that could lay the land for further commentary. So to me, this is kind of an interesting thing.

If you look at C++ versus C, with modern compilers, you really could write faster code

with C++. So relying on the compiler to reduce your complicated code into something simple and

fast. So to me, comparing risk, maybe this is a dumb question, but why is it that focusing the

definition of the design of the instruction set on very few simple instructions in the long run

provide faster execution versus coming up with, like you said, a ton of complicated instructions

that over time, you know, years, maybe decades, you come up with compilers that can reduce those

into simple instructions for you. Yeah. So let's try and split that into two pieces.

So if the compiler can do that for you, if the compiler can take, you know, a complicated program

and produce simpler instructions, then the programmer doesn't care, right? I don't care just

how fast is the computer I'm using, how much does it cost? And so what happened kind of in the

software industry is right around before the 1980s, critical pieces of software were still written

not in languages like C or C++, they were written in what's called assembly language, where there's

this kind of humans writing exactly at the instructions at the level that a computer can

understand. So they were writing add, subtract, multiply, you know, instructions. It's very tedious.

But the belief was to write this lowest level of software that people use, which are called operating

systems, they had to be written in assembly language because these high level languages were just too

inefficient. They were too slow, or the programs would be too big. So that changed with a famous

operating system called Unix, which is kind of the grandfather of all the operating systems today.

So Unix demonstrated that you could write something as complicated as an operating system in a

language like C. So once that was true, then that meant we could hide the instruction set from the

programmer. And so that meant then it didn't really matter. The programmer didn't have to write

lots of these simple instructions, that was up to the compiler. So that was part of our arguments

for risk is, if you were still writing assembly language, there's maybe a better case for CISC

instructions. But if the compiler can do that, it's going to be, you know, that's done once the

computer translates at once. And then every time you run the program, it runs at this potentially

simpler instructions. And so that was the debate, right? And people would acknowledge that the

simpler instructions could lead to a faster computer. You can think of monosyllabic instructions,

you could say them, you know, if you think of reading, you can probably read them faster or say

them faster than long instructions. The same thing, that analogy works pretty well for hardware.

And as long as you didn't have to read a lot more of those instructions, you could win. So that's

kind of, that's the basic idea for risk. But it's interesting that in that discussion of Unix and C,

that there's only one step of levels of abstraction from the code that's really the closest to the

machine to the code that's written by human. It's, at least to me again, perhaps a dumb intuition,

but it feels like there might've been more layers, sort of different kinds of humans stacked on top

of each other. So what's true and not true about what you said is several of the layers of software,

like, so the, if you, two layers would be, suppose we just talked about two layers,

that would be the operating system, like you get from Microsoft or from Apple, like iOS,

or the Windows operating system. And let's say applications that run on top of it, like Word

or Excel. So both the operating system could be written in C and the application could be written

in C. But you could construct those two layers and the applications absolutely do call upon the

operating system. And the change was that both of them could be written in higher level languages.

So it's one step of a translation, but you can still build many layers of abstraction

of software on top of that. And that's how things are done today. So still today,

many of the layers that you'll deal with, you may deal with debuggers, you may deal with linkers,

there's libraries. Many of those today will be written in C++, say, even though that language is

pretty ancient. And even the Python interpreter is probably written in C or C++. So lots of

layers there are probably written in these, some old fashioned efficient languages that

still take one step to produce these instructions, produce RISC instructions, but they're composed,

each layer of software invokes one another through these interfaces. And you can get 10 layers of

software that way. So in general, the RISC was developed here at Berkeley? It was kind of the

three places that were these radicals that advocated for this against the rest of community

were IBM, Berkeley, and Stanford. You're one of these radicals. And how radical did you feel?

How confident did you feel? How doubtful were you that RISC might be the right approach? Because

it may, you can also intuit that is kind of taking a step back into simplicity, not forward into

simplicity. Yeah, no, it was easy to make, yeah, it was easy to make the argument against it. Well,

this was my colleague, John Hennessy at Stanford Nine. We were both assistant professors. And

for me, I just believed in the power of our ideas. I thought what we were saying made sense.

Moore's law is going to move fast. The other thing that I didn't mention is one of the surprises of

these complex instruction sets. You could certainly write these complex instructions

if the programmer is writing them themselves. It turned out to be kind of difficult for the

compiler to generate those complex instructions. Kind of ironically, you'd have to find the right

circumstances that just exactly fit this complex instruction. It was actually easier for the

compiler to generate these simple instructions. So not only did these complex instructions make

the hardware more difficult to build, often the compiler wouldn't even use them. And so

it's harder to build. The compiler doesn't use them that much. The simple instructions go better

with Moore's law. The number of transistors is doubling every two years. So we're going to have,

you want to reduce the time to design the microprocessor, that may be more important

than these number of instructions. So I think we believed that we were right, that this was

the best idea. Then the question became in these debates, well, yeah, that's a good technical idea,

but in the business world, this doesn't matter. There's other things that matter. It's like

arguing that if there's a standard with the railroad tracks and you've come up with a better

width, but the whole world is covered in railroad tracks, so your ideas have no chance of success.

Right. Commercial success. It was technically right, but commercially it'll be insignificant.

Yeah, it's kind of sad that this world, the history of human civilization is full of good ideas that

lost because somebody else came along first with a worse idea. And it's good that in the

computing world, at least some of these have, well, you could, I mean, there's probably still

CISC people that say, yeah, there still are. And what happened was, what was interesting, Intel,

a bunch of the CISC companies with CISC instruction sets of vocabulary, they gave up,

but not Intel. What Intel did to its credit, because Intel's vocabulary was in the personal

computer. And so that was a very valuable vocabulary because the way we distribute software

is in those actual instructions. It's in the instructions of that instruction set. So

you don't get that source code, what the programmers wrote. You get, after it's been translated into

the lowest level, that's if you were to get a floppy disk or download software, it's in the

instructions of that instruction set. So the x86 instruction set was very valuable. So what Intel

did cleverly and amazingly is they had their chips in hardware do a translation step.

They would take these complex instructions and translate them into essentially in RISC instructions

in hardware on the fly, at gigahertz clock speeds. And then any good idea that RISC people had,

they could use, and they could still be compatible with this really valuable PC software base,

which also had very high volumes, 100 million personal computers per year. So the CISC architecture

in the business world was actually won in this PC era. So just going back to the

time of designing RISC, when you design an instruction set architecture, do you think

like a programmer? Do you think like a microprocessor engineer? Do you think like a

artist, a philosopher? Do you think in software and hardware? I mean, is it art? Is it science?

Yeah, I'd say, I think designing a good instruction set is an art. And I think you're trying to

balance the simplicity and speed of execution with how well easy it will be for compilers

to use it. You're trying to create an instruction set that everything in there can be used by

compilers. There's not things that are missing that'll make it difficult for the program to run.

They run efficiently, but you want it to be easy to build as well. So I'd say you're thinking

hardware, trying to find a hardware software compromise that'll work well. And it's a matter

of taste. It's kind of fun to build instruction sets. It's not that hard to build an instruction

set, but to build one that catches on and people use, you have to be fortunate to be

the right place in the right time or have a design that people really like. Are you using metrics?

So is it quantifiable? Because you kind of have to anticipate the kind of programs that people

write ahead of time. So can you use numbers? Can you use metrics? Can you quantify something ahead

of time? Or is this, again, that's the art part where you're kind of anticipating? No, it's a big

change. Kind of what happened, I think from Hennessy's and my perspective in the 1980s,

what happened was going from kind of really, you know, taste and hunches to quantifiable. And in

fact, he and I wrote a textbook at the end of the 1980s called Computer Architecture, A Quantitative

Approach. I heard of that. And it's the thing, it had a pretty big impact in the field because we

went from textbooks that kind of listed, so here's what this computer does, and here's the pros and

cons, and here's what this computer does and pros and cons to something where there were formulas

and equations where you could measure things. So specifically for instruction sets, what we do

and some other fields do is we agree upon a set of programs, which we call benchmarks,

and a suite of programs, and then you develop both the hardware and the compiler and you get

numbers on how well your computer does given its instruction set and how well you implemented it in

your microprocessor and how good your compilers are. In computer architecture, you know, using

professor's terms, we grade on a curve rather than grade on an absolute scale. So when you say,

you know, these programs run this fast, well, that's kind of interesting, but how do you know

it's better? Well, you compare it to other computers at the same time. So the best way we

know how to turn it into a kind of more science and experimental and quantitative is to compare

yourself to other computers of the same era that have the same access to the same kind of technology

on commonly agreed benchmark programs.

So maybe to toss up two possible directions we can go. One is what are the different tradeoffs

in designing architectures? We've been already talking about SISC and RISC, but maybe a little

bit more detail in terms of specific features that you were thinking about. And the other side is

what are the metrics that you're thinking about when looking at these tradeoffs?

Yeah, let's talk about the metrics. So during these debates, we actually had kind of a hard

time explaining, convincing people the ideas, and partly we didn't have a formula to explain it.

And a few years into it, we hit upon a formula that helped explain what was going on. And

I think if we can do this, see how it works orally to do this. So if I can do a formula

orally, let's see. So fundamentally, the way you measure performance is how long does it take a

program to run? A program, if you have 10 programs, and typically these benchmarks were sweet because

you'd want to have 10 programs so they could represent lots of different applications. So for

these 10 programs, how long does it take to run? Well now, when you're trying to explain why it

took so long, you could factor how long it takes a program to run into three factors.

One of the first one is how many instructions did it take to execute? So that's the what we've been

talking about, you know, the instructions of Alchemy. How many did it take? All right. The

next question is how long did each instruction take to run on average? So you multiply the number

of instructions times how long it took to run, and that gets you time. Okay, so that's, but now let's

look at this metric of how long did it take the instruction to run. Well, it turns out,

the way we could build computers today is they all have a clock, and you've seen this when you,

if you buy a microprocessor, it'll say 3.1 gigahertz or 2.5 gigahertz, and more gigahertz is

good. Well, what that is is the speed of the clock. So 2.5 gigahertz turns out to be 4 billionths of

instruction or 4 nanoseconds. So that's the clock cycle time. But there's another factor, which is

what's the average number of clock cycles it takes per instruction? So it's number of instructions,

average number of clock cycles, and the clock cycle time. So in these risk sis debates, they

would concentrate on, but risk needs to take more instructions, and we'd argue maybe the clock cycle

is faster, but what the real big difference was was the number of clock cycles per instruction.

Per instruction, that's fascinating. What about the mess of, the beautiful mess of parallelism in the

whole picture? Parallelism, which has to do with, say, how many instructions could execute in parallel

and things like that, you could think of that as affecting the clock cycles per instruction,

because it's the average clock cycles per instruction. So when you're running a program,

if it took 100 billion instructions, and on average it took two clock cycles per instruction,

and they were four nanoseconds, you could multiply that out and see how long it took to run.

And there's all kinds of tricks to try and reduce the number of clock cycles per instruction.

But it turned out that the way they would do these complex instructions is they would actually

build what we would call an interpreter in a simpler, a very simple hardware interpreter.

But it turned out that for the sis constructions, if you had to use one of those interpreters,

it would be like 10 clock cycles per instruction, where the risk constructions could be two. So

there'd be this factor of five advantage in clock cycles per instruction. We have to execute, say,

25 or 50 percent more instructions, so that's where the win would come. And then you could

make an argument whether the clock cycle times are the same or not. But pointing out that we

could divide the benchmark results time per program into three factors, and the biggest

difference between RISC and SIS was the clock cycles per, you execute a few more instructions,

but the clock cycles per instruction is much less. And that was what this debate, once we

made that argument, then people said, oh, okay, I get it. And so we went from, it was outrageously

controversial in, you know, 1982 that maybe probably by 1984 or so, people said, oh, yeah,

technically, they've got a good argument. What are the instructions in the RISC instruction set,

just to get an intuition? Okay. 1995, I was asked to predict the future of what microprocessor

could future. So I, and I'd seen these predictions and usually people predict something outrageous

just to be entertaining, right? And so my prediction for 2020 was, you know, things are

going to be pretty much, they're going to look very familiar to what they are. And they are,

and if you were to read the article, you know, the things I said are pretty much true. The

instructions that have been around forever are kind of the same. And that's the outrageous

prediction, actually. Yeah. Given how fast computers have been going. Well, and you know,

Moore's law was going to go on, we thought for 25 more years, you know, who knows, but kind of the

surprising thing, in fact, you know, Hennessy and I, you know, won the ACM, AM, Turing award for

both the RISC instruction set contributions and for that textbook I mentioned. But, you know,

we're surprised that here we are 35, 40 years later after we did our work and the conventionalism

of the best way to do instruction sets is still those RISC instruction sets that looked very

similar to what we looked like, you know, we did in the 1980s. So those, surprisingly, there hasn't

been some radical new idea, even though we have, you know, a million times as many transistors as

we had back then. But what are the basic constructions and how do they change over the

years? So we're talking about addition, subtraction, these are the specific. So the things that are in

a calculator are in a computer. So any of the buttons that are in the calculator in the computer,

so the, so if there's a memory function key, and like I said, those are, turns into putting

something in memory is called a store, bring something back to load. Just a quick tangent.

When you say memory, what does memory mean? Well, I told you there were five pieces of a computer.

And if you remember in a calculator, there's a memory key. So you want to have intermediate

calculation and bring it back later. So you'd hit the memory plus key M plus maybe, and it would

put that into memory and then you'd hit an RM like recurrence section and then bring it back

on the display. So you don't have to type it. You don't have to write it down and bring it back

again. So that's exactly what memory is. You can put things into it as temporary storage and bring

it back when you need it later. So that's memory and loads and stores. But the big thing, the

difference between a computer and a calculator is that the computer can make decisions. And

amazingly, decisions are as simple as, is this value less than zero? Or is this value bigger

than that value? And those instructions, which are called conditional branch instructions,

is what give computers all its power. If you were in the early days of computing before

what's called the general purpose microprocessor, people would write these instructions kind of in

hardware, but it couldn't make decisions. It would do the same thing over and over again.

With the power of having branch instructions, it can look at things and make decisions

automatically. And it can make these decisions billions of times per second. And amazingly

enough, we can get, thanks to advanced machine learning, we can create programs that can do

something smarter than human beings can do. But if you go down that very basic level, it's the

instructions are the keys on the calculator, plus the ability to make decisions, these conditional

branch instructions. And all decisions fundamentally can be reduced down to these

branch instructions. Yeah. So in fact, and so going way back in the stack back to,

we did four RISC projects at Berkeley in the 1980s. They did a couple at Stanford

in the 1980s. In 2010, we decided we wanted to do a new instruction set learning from the mistakes

of those RISC architectures in the 1980s. And that was done here at Berkeley almost exactly

10 years ago. And the people who did it, I participated, but Krzysztof Sanowicz and others

drove it. They called it RISC 5 to honor those RISC, the four RISC projects of the 1980s.

So what does RISC 5 involve? So RISC 5 is another instruction set of vocabulary. It's learned from

the mistakes of the past, but it still has, if you look at the, there's a core set of instructions

that's very similar to the simplest architectures from the 1980s. And the big difference about RISC

5 is it's open. So I talked early about proprietary versus open software. So this is an instruction

set. So it's a vocabulary, it's not hardware, but by having an open instruction set, we can have

open source implementations, open source processors that people can use. Where do you see that

going? It's a really exciting possibility, but you're just like in the scientific American,

if you were to predict 10, 20, 30 years from now, that kind of ability to utilize open source

instruction set architectures like RISC 5, what kind of possibilities might that unlock?

Yeah. And so just to make it clear, because this is confusing, the specification of RISC 5 is

something that's like in a textbook, there's books about it. So that's defining an interface.

There's also the way you build hardware is you write it in languages that are kind of like C,

but they're specialized for hardware that gets translated into hardware. And so these

implementations of this specification are the open source. So they're written in something

that's called Verilog or VHDL, but it's put up on the web, just like you can see the C++ code for

Linux on the web. So that's the open instruction set enables open source implementations of RISC 5.

So you can literally build a processor using this instruction set.

People are, people are. So what happened to us that the story was this was developed here for

our use to do our research. And we made it, we licensed under the Berkeley Software Distribution

License, like a lot of things get licensed here. So other academics use it, they wouldn't be afraid

to use it. And then about 2014, we started getting complaints that we were using it in our research

and in our courses. And we got complaints from people in industries, why did you change your

instruction set between the fall and the spring semester? And well, we get complaints from

industrial time. Why the hell do you care what we do with our instruction set? And then when we

talked to him, we found out there was this thirst for this idea of an open instruction set

architecture. And they had been looking for one. They stumbled upon ours at Berkeley, thought it

was, boy, this looks great. We should use this one. And so once we realized there is this need

for an open instruction set architecture, we thought that's a great idea. And then we started

supporting it and tried to make it happen. So this was kind of, we accidentally stumbled into this

and to this need and our timing was good. And so it's really taking off. There's,

you know, universities are good at starting things, but they're not good at sustaining things. So like

Linux has a Linux foundation, there's a RISC 5 foundation that we started. There's an annual

conferences. And the first one was done, I think, January of 2015. And the one that was just last

December in it, you know, it had 50 people at it. And this one last December had, I don't know,

1700 people were at it and the companies excited all over the world. So if predicting into the

future, you know, if we were doing 25 years, I would predict that RISC 5 will be, you know,

possibly the most popular instruction set architecture out there, because it's a pretty

good instruction set architecture and it's open and free. And there's no reason lots of people

shouldn't use it. And there's benefits just like Linux is so popular today compared to 20 years

ago. And, you know, the fact that you can get access to it for free, you can modify it, you can

improve it for all those same arguments. And so people collaborate to make it a better system

for everybody to use. And that works in software. And I expect the same thing will happen in

hardware. So if you look at ARM, Intel, MIPS, if you look at just the lay of the land,

and what do you think, just for me, because I'm not familiar how difficult this kind of transition

would, how much challenges this kind of transition would entail, do you see,

let me ask my dumb question in another way.

No, that's, I know where you're headed. Well, there's a bunch, I think the thing you point out,

there's these very popular proprietary instruction sets, the x86.

And so how do we move to RISC 5 potentially in sort of in the span of 5, 10, 20 years,

a kind of unification, given that the devices, the kind of way we use devices,

IoT, mobile devices, and the cloud keeps changing?

Well, part of it, a big piece of it is the software stack. And right now, looking forward,

there seem to be three important markets. There's the cloud. And the cloud is simply

companies like Alibaba and Amazon and Google, Microsoft, having these giant data centers with

tens of thousands of servers in maybe a hundred of these data centers all over the world.

And that's what the cloud is. So the computer that dominates the cloud is the x86 instruction set.

So the instruction sets used in the cloud are the x86, almost 100% of that today is x86.

The other big thing are cell phones and laptops. Those are the big things today.

I mean, the PC is also dominated by the x86 instruction set, but those sales are dwindling.

You know, there's maybe 200 million PCs a year, and there's one and a half billion phones a year.

There's numbers like that. So for the phones, that's dominated by ARM.

And now, and a reason that I talked about the software stacks, and the third category is

Internet of Things, which is basically embedded devices, things in your cars and your microwaves

everywhere. So what's different about those three categories is for the cloud, the software that

runs in the cloud is determined by these companies, Alibaba, Amazon, Google, Microsoft. So they

control that software stack. For the cell phones, there's both for Android and Apple, the software

they supply, but both of them have marketplaces where anybody in the world can build software.

And that software is translated or, you know, compiled down and shipped in the vocabulary of ARM.

So that's what's referred to as binary compatible because the actual, it's the instructions are

turned into numbers, binary numbers, and shipped around the world.

And sorry, just a quick interruption. So ARM, what is ARM? ARM is an instruction set, like a risk based...

Yeah, it's a risk based instruction set. It's a proprietary one. ARM stands for Advanced Risk

Machine. ARM is the name where the company is. So it's a proprietary risk architecture.

So, and it's been around for a while and it's, you know, the, surely the most popular instruction set

in the world right now. They, every year, billions of chips are using the ARM design in this post PC

era. Was it one of the early risk adopters of the risk idea? Yeah. The first ARM goes back,

I don't know, 86 or so. So Berkeley instead did their work in the early 80s. The ARM guys needed

an instruction set and they read our papers and it heavily influenced them. So getting back to my

story, what about Internet of Things? Well, software is not shipped in Internet of Things. It's the

embedded device people control that software stack. So the opportunities for risk five,

everybody thinks, is in the Internet of Things embedded things because there's no dominant

player like there is in the cloud or the smartphones. And, you know, it's, it's,

doesn't have a lot of licenses associated with, and you can enhance the instruction set if you want.

And it's, and people have looked at instruction sets and think it's a very good instruction set.

So it appears to be very popular there. It's possible that in the cloud people,

those companies control their software stacks. So it's possible that they would decide to use

risk five if we're talking about 10 and 20 years in the future. The one that would be harder would

be the cell phones. Since people ship software in the ARM instruction set that you'd think be

the more difficult one. But if risk five really catches on and, you know, you could,

in a period of a decade, you can imagine that's changing over too. Do you have a sense why risk

five or ARM has dominated? You mentioned these three categories. Why has, why did ARM dominate,

why does it dominate the mobile device space? And maybe my naive intuition is that there are some

aspects of power efficiency that are important that somehow come along with risk. Well, part of it is

for these old CIS construction sets, like in the x86, it was more expensive to these for, you know,

they're older, so they have disadvantages in them because they were designed 40 years ago. But also

they have to translate in hardware from CIS constructions to risk constructions on the fly.

And that costs both silicon area that the chips are bigger to be able to do that.

And it uses more power. So ARM has, which has, you know, followed this risk philosophy is

seen to be much more energy efficient. And in today's computer world, both in the cloud

and the cell phone and, you know, things, it isn't, the limiting resource isn't the number of

transistors you can fit in the chip. It's what, how much power can you dissipate for your

application? So by having a reduced instruction set, that's possible to have a simpler hardware,

which is more energy efficient. And energy efficiency is incredibly important in the cloud.

When you have tens of thousands of computers in a data center, you want to have the most energy

efficient ones there as well. And of course, for embedded things running off of batteries,

you want those to be energy efficient and the cell phones too. So I think it's believed that

there's a energy disadvantage of using these more complex instruction set architectures.

So the other aspect of this is if we look at Apple, Qualcomm, Samsung, Huawei, all use the

ARM architecture, and yet the performance of the systems varies. I mean, I don't know

whose opinion you take on, but you know, Apple for some reason seems to perform better in terms of

these implementation, these architectures. So where's the magic and show the picture.

How's that happen? Yeah. So what ARM pioneered was a new business model. As they said, well,

here's our proprietary instruction set, and we'll give you two ways to do it.

We'll give you one of these implementations written in things like C called Verilog,

and you can just use ours. Well, you have to pay money for that. Not only you pay,

we'll give you their, you know, we'll license you to do that, or you could design your own. And so

we're talking about numbers like tens of millions of dollars to have the right to design your own,

since they, it's the instruction set belongs to them. So Apple got one of those, the right to

build their own. Most of the other people who build like Android phones just get one of the designs

from ARM to do it themselves. So Apple developed a really good microprocessor design team. They,

you know, acquired a very good team that had, was building other microprocessors and brought them

into the company to build their designs. So the instruction sets are the same, the specifications

are the same, but their hardware design is much more efficient than I think everybody else's.

And that's given Apple an advantage in the marketplace in that the iPhones tend to be the

faster than most everybody else's phones that are there. It'd be nice to be able to jump around and

kind of explore different little sides of this, but let me ask one sort of romanticized question.

What to you is the most beautiful aspect or idea of RISC instruction set?

Most beautiful aspect or idea of RISC instruction set or instruction sets or this work that you've

done? You know, I'm, you know, I was always attracted to the idea of, you know, small is

beautiful, right? Is that the temptation in engineering, it's kind of easy to make things

more complicated. It's harder to come up with a, it's more difficult, surprisingly, to come up with

a simple, elegant solution. And I think that there's a bunch of small features of RISC in general

that, you know, where you can see this examples of keeping it simpler makes it more elegant.

Specifically in RISC 5, which, you know, I was kind of the mentor in the program, but it was

really driven by Krzysztof Sanović and two grad students, Andrew Waterman and Yen Tsip Li, is they

hit upon this idea of having a subset of instructions, a nice, simple subset instructions,

like 40ish instructions that all software, the software staff RISC 5 can run just on those 40

instructions. And then they provide optional features that could accelerate the performance

instructions that if you needed them could be very helpful, but you don't need to have them.

And that's a new, really a new idea. So RISC 5 has right now maybe five optional subsets that

you can pull in, but the software runs without them. If you just want to build the, just the core

40 instructions, that's fine. You can do that. So this is fantastic educationally is you can

explain computers. You only have to explain 40 instructions and not thousands of them. Also,

if you invent some wild and crazy new technology like, you know, biological computing, you'd like

a nice, simple instruction set and you can, RISC 5, if you implement those core instructions, you

can run, you know, really interesting programs on top of that. So this idea of a core set of

instructions that the software stack runs on and then optional features that if you turn them on,

the compilers were used, but you don't have to, I think is a powerful idea. What's happened in

the past for the proprietary instruction sets is when they add new instructions, it becomes

required piece. And so that all microprocessors in the future have to use those instructions. So

it's kind of like, for a lot of people as they get older, they gain weight, right? That weight and

age are correlated. And so you can see these instruction sets getting bigger and bigger as

they get older. So RISC 5, you know, lets you be as slim as you as a teenager. And you only have to

add these extra features if you're really going to use them rather than you have no choice. You have

to keep growing with the instruction set. I don't know if the analogy holds up, but that's a beautiful

notion that there's, it's almost like a nudge towards here's the simple core. That's the

essential. Yeah. And I think the surprising thing is still if we brought back, you know,

the pioneers from the 1950s and showed them the instruction set architectures, they'd understand

it. They'd say, wow, that doesn't look that different. Well, you know, I'm surprised. And

it's, there's, it may be something, you know, to talk about philosophical things. I mean, there may

be something powerful about those, you know, 40 or 50 instructions that all you need is these

commands like these instructions that we talked about. And that is sufficient to build, to bring

up on, you know, artificial intelligence. And so it's a remarkable, surprising to me that as

complicated as it is to build these things, you know, microprocessors where the line widths are

are narrower than the wavelength of light, you know, is this amazing technologies at some

fundamental level. The commands that software executes are really pretty straightforward and

haven't changed that much in decades. What a surprising outcome. So underlying all computation,

all Turing machines, all artificial intelligence systems, perhaps might be a very simple instruction

set like a RISC5 or it's. Yeah. I mean, that's kind of what I said. I was interested to see,

I had another more senior faculty colleague and he had written something in Scientific American

and, you know, his 25 years in the future and his turned out about when I was a young professor and

he said, yep, I checked it. And so I was interested to see how that was going to turn out for me. And

it's pretty held up pretty well, but yeah, so there's, there's probably, there's some, you know,

there's, there must be something fundamental about those instructions that we're capable of

creating, you know, intelligence from pretty primitive operations and just doing them really

fast. You kind of mentioned a different, maybe radical computational medium like biological,

and there's other ideas. So there's a lot of spaces in ASIC, domain specific, and then there

could be quantum computers. And so we can think of all of those different mediums and types of

computation. What's the connection between swapping out different hardware systems and the

instruction set? Do you see those as disjoint or are they fundamentally coupled? Yeah. So what's,

so kind of, if we go back to the history, you know, when Moore's Law is in full effect and

you're getting twice as many transistors every couple of years, you know, kind of the challenge

for computer designers is how can we take advantage of that? How can we turn those transistors into

better computers faster typically? And so there was an era, I guess in the 80s and 90s where

computers were doubling performance every 18 months. And if you weren't around then,

what would happen is you had your computer and your friend's computer, which was like a year,

a year and a half newer, and it was much faster than your computer. And he or she could get their

work done much faster than your computer because it was newer. So people took their computers,

perfectly good computers, and threw them away to buy a newer computer because the computer

one or two years later was so much faster. So that's what the world was like in the 80s and

90s. Well, with the slowing down of Moore's Law, that's no longer true, right? Now with, you know,

not desk side computers with the laptops, I only get a new desk laptop when it breaks,

right? Oh damn, the disk broke or this display broke, I gotta buy a new computer. But before

you would throw them away because it just, they were just so sluggish compared to the latest

computers. So that's, you know, that's a huge change of what's gone on. So, but since this

lasted for decades, kind of programmers and maybe all of society is used to computers getting faster

regularly. We now believe, those of us who are in computer design, it's called computer

architecture, that the path forward is instead is to add accelerators that only work well for

certain applications. So since Moore's Law is slowing down, we don't think general purpose

computers are going to get a lot faster. So the Intel processors of the world are not going to,

haven't been getting a lot faster. They've been barely improving, like a few percent a year.

It used to be doubling every 18 months and now it's doubling every 20 years. So it was just

shocking. So to be able to deliver on what Moore's Law used to do, we think what's going to happen,

what is happening right now is people adding accelerators to their microprocessors that only

work well for some domains. And by sheer coincidence, at the same time that this is happening,

has been this revolution in artificial intelligence called machine learning. So with,

as I'm sure your other guests have said, you know, AI had these two competing schools of thought is

that we could figure out artificial intelligence by just writing the rules top down, or that was

wrong. You had to look at data and infer what the rules are, the machine learning, and what's

happened in the last decade or eight years as machine learning has won. And it turns out that

machine learning, the hardware you build for machine learning is pretty much multiply. The

matrix multiply is a key feature for the way machine learning is done. So that's a godsend

for computer designers. We know how to make matrix multiply run really fast. So general purpose

microprocessors are slowing down. We're adding accelerators for machine learning that fundamentally

are doing matrix multiplies much more efficiently than general purpose computers have done.

So we have to come up with a new way to accelerate things. The danger of only accelerating one

application is how important is that application. Turns out machine learning gets used for all

kinds of things. So serendipitously, we found something to accelerate that's widely applicable.

And we don't even, we're in the middle of this revolution of machine learning. We're not sure

what the limits of machine learning are. So this has been a kind of a godsend. If you're going to

be able to excel, deliver on improved performance, as long as people are moving their programs to be

embracing more machine learning, we know how to give them more performance even as Moore's law

is slowing down. And counterintuitively, the machine learning mechanism you can say is domain

specific, but because it's leveraging data, it's actually could be very broad in terms of

in terms of the domains it could be applied in. Yeah, that's exactly right. Sort of, it's almost

sort of people sometimes talk about the idea of software 2.0. We're almost taking another step

up in the abstraction layer in designing machine learning systems, because now you're programming

in the space of data, in the space of hyperparameters, it's changing fundamentally

the nature of programming. And so the specialized devices that accelerate the performance, especially

neural network based machine learning systems might become the new general. Yeah. So the thing

that's interesting point out these are not coral, these are not tied together. The enthusiasm about

machine learning about creating programs driven from data that we should figure out the answers

from data rather than kind of top down, which classically the way most programming is done

and the way artificial intelligence used to be done. That's a movement that's going on at the

same time. Coincidentally, and the first word machine learning is machines, right? So that's

going to increase the demand for computing, because instead of programmers being smart, writing those

those things down, we're going to instead use computers to examine a lot of data to kind of

create the programs. That's the idea. And remarkably, this gets used for all kinds of

things very successfully. The image recognition, the language translation, the game playing,

and you know, it gets into pieces of the software stack like databases and stuff like that. We're

not quite sure how general purpose is, but that's going on independent of this hardware stuff.

What's happening on the hardware side is Moore's law is slowing down right when we need a lot more

cycles. It's failing us, it's failing us right when we need it because there's going to be a

greater increase in computing. And then this idea that we're going to do so called domain

specific. Here's a domain that your greatest fear is you'll make this one thing work and that'll

help, you know, five percent of the people in the world. Well, this looks like it's a very

general purpose thing. So the timing is fortuitous that if we can perhaps, if we can keep building

hardware that will accelerate machine learning, the neural networks, that'll beat the timing will

be right. That neural network revolution will transform your software, the so called software

2.0. And the software of the future will be very different from the software of the past. And just

as our microprocessors, even though we're still going to have that same basic RISC instructions

to run a big pieces of the software stack like user interfaces and stuff like that,

we can accelerate the kind of the small piece that's computationally intensive. It's not lots

of lines of code, but it takes a lot of cycles to run that code that that's going to be the

accelerator piece. And so that's what makes this from a computer designers perspective a really

interesting decade. What Hennessy and I talked about in the title of our Turing Warrant speech

is a new golden age. We see this as a very exciting decade, much like when we were assistant

professors and the RISC stuff was going on. That was a very exciting time was where we were changing

what was going on. We see this happening again. Tremendous opportunities of people because we're

fundamentally changing how software is built and how we're running it. So which layer of the

abstraction do you think most of the acceleration might be happening? If you look in the next 10

years, Google is working on a lot of exciting stuff with the TPU. Sort of there's a closer to

the hardware that could be optimizations around the closer to the instruction set.

There could be optimization at the compiler level. It could be even at the higher level software

stack. Yeah, it's got to be, I mean, if you think about the old RISC Sys debate, it was both,

it was software hardware. It was the compilers improving as well as the architecture improving.

And that's likely to be the way things are now. With machine learning, they're using

domain specific languages. The languages like TensorFlow and PyTorch are very popular with

the machine learning people. Those are the raising the level of abstraction. It's easier

for people to write machine learning in these domain specific languages like PyTorch and

TensorFlow. So where the most optimization might be happening. Yeah. And so there'll be both the

compiler piece and the hardware piece underneath it. So as you kind of the fatal flaw for hardware

people is to create really great hardware, but not have brought along the compilers. And what we're

seeing right now in the marketplace because of this enthusiasm around hardware for machine

learning is getting, you know, probably billions of dollars invested in startup companies. We're

seeing startup companies go belly up because they focus on the hardware, but didn't bring the

software stack along. We talked about benchmarks earlier. So I participated in machine learning

didn't really have a set of benchmarks. I think just two years ago, they didn't have a set of

benchmarks. And we've created something called ML Perf, which is machine learning benchmark suite.

And pretty much the companies who didn't invest in the software stack couldn't run ML Perf very

well. And the ones who did invest in software stack did. And we're seeing, you know, like kind

of in computer architecture, this is what happens. You have these arguments about risk versus this.

People spend billions of dollars in the marketplace to see who wins. It's not a perfect comparison,

but it kind of sorts things out. And we're seeing companies go out of business and then companies

like there's a company in Israel called Habana. They came up with machine learning accelerators.

They had good ML Perf scores. Intel had acquired a company earlier called Nirvana a couple of years

ago. They didn't reveal their ML Perf scores, which was suspicious. But a month ago, Intel

announced that they're canceling the Nirvana product line and they've bought Habana for $2

billion. And Intel's going to be shipping Habana chips, which have hardware and software and run

the ML Perf programs pretty well. And that's going to be their product line in the future.

Brilliant. So maybe just to linger briefly on ML Perf. I love metrics. I love standards that

everyone can gather around. What are some interesting aspects of that portfolio of metrics?

Well, one of the interesting metrics is what we thought. I was involved in the start.

Peter Mattson is leading the effort from Google. Google got it off the ground,

but we had to reach out to competitors and say, there's no benchmarks here. We think this is

bad for the field. It'll be much better if we look at examples like in the risk days,

there was an effort to create a... For the people in the risk community got together,

competitors got together building risk microprocessors to agree on a set of

benchmarks that were called spec. And that was good for the industry. It's rather before

the different risk architectures were arguing, well, you can believe my performance others,

but those other guys are liars. And that didn't do any good. So we agreed on a set of benchmarks

and then we could figure out who was faster between the various risk architectures. But

it was a little bit faster, but that grew the market rather than people were afraid to buy

anything. So we argued the same thing would happen with MLPerf. Companies like Nvidia were maybe

worried that it was some kind of trap, but eventually we all got together to create a

set of benchmarks and do the right thing. And we agree on the results. And so we can see whether

TPUs or GPUs or CPUs are really faster and how much the faster. And I think from an engineer's

perspective, as long as the results are fair, you can live with it. Okay, you kind of tip your hat

to your colleagues at another institution, boy, they did a better job than us. What you hate is

if it's false, right? They're making claims and it's just marketing bullshit and that's affecting

sales. So from an engineer's perspective, as long as it's a fair comparison and we don't come in

first place, that's too bad, but it's fair. So we wanted to create that environment for MLPerf.

And so now there's 10 companies, I mean, 10 universities and 50 companies involved. So pretty

much MLPerf is the way you measure machine learning performance. And it didn't exist even

two years ago. One of the cool things that I enjoy about the internet has a few downsides, but one of

the nice things is people can see through BS a little better with the presence of these kinds

of metrics. So it's really nice companies like Google and Facebook and Twitter. Now, it's the

cool thing to do is to put your engineers forward and to actually show off how well you do on these

metrics. There's less of a desire to do marketing, less so. In my sort of naive viewpoint.

I was trying to understand what's changed from the 80s in this era. I think because of things

like social networking, Twitter and stuff like that, if you put up bullshit stuff that's just

purposely misleading, you can get a violent reaction in social media pointing out the flaws

in your arguments. And so from a marketing perspective, you have to be careful today that

you didn't have to be careful that there'll be people who put out the flaw. You can get the

word out about the flaws in what you're saying much more easily today than in the past. It used

to be easier to get away with it. And the other thing that's been happening in terms of showing

off engineers is just in the software side, people have largely embraced open source software.

20 years ago, it was a dirty word at Microsoft. And today Microsoft is one of the big proponents

of open source software. That's the standard way most software gets built, which really shows off

your engineers because you can see if you look at the source code, you can see who are making the

commits, who's making the improvements, who are the engineers at all these companies who are

really great programmers and engineers and making really solid contributions,

which enhances their reputations and the reputation of the companies.

LR But that's, of course, not everywhere. Like in the space that I work more in is autonomous

vehicles. And there's still the machinery of hype and marketing is still very strong there. And

there's less willingness to be open in this kind of open source way and sort of benchmark. So

MLPerf represents the machine learning world is much better being open source about holding

itself to standards of different, the amount of incredible benchmarks in terms of the different

computer vision, natural language processing tasks is incredible.

LR Historically, it wasn't always that way.

I had a graduate student working with me, David Martin. So in computer, in some fields,

benchmarking has been around forever. So computer architecture, databases, maybe operating systems,

benchmarks are the way you measure progress. But he was working with me and then started working

with Jitendra Malik. And Jitendra Malik in computer vision space, I guess you've interviewed

Jitendra. And David Martin told me, they don't have benchmarks. Everybody has their own vision

algorithm and the way, here's my image, look at how well I do. And everybody had their own image.

So David Martin, back when he did his dissertation, figured out a way to do benchmarks. He had a bunch

of graduate students identify images and then ran benchmarks to see which algorithms run well. And

that was, as far as I know, kind of the first time people did benchmarks in computer vision, which

was predated all the things that eventually led to ImageNet and stuff like that. But then the vision

community got religion. And then once we got as far as ImageNet, then that let the guys in Toronto

be able to win the ImageNet competition. And then that changed the whole world.

It's a scary step actually, because when you enter the world of benchmarks, you actually have to be

good to participate as opposed to... Yeah, you can just, you just believe you're the best in the

world. I think the people, I think they weren't purposely misleading. I think if you don't have

benchmarks, I mean, how do you know? Your intuition is kind of like the way we did just

do computer architecture. Your intuition is that this is the right instruction set to do this job.

I believe in my experience, my hunch is that's true. We had to get to make things more quantitative

to make progress. And so I just don't know how, you know, in fields that don't have benchmarks,

I don't understand how they figure out how they're making progress.

We're kind of in the vacuum tube days of quantum computing. What are your thoughts in this wholly

different kind of space of architectures? You know, I actually, you know, quantum computing

is, idea has been around for a while and I actually thought, well, I sure hope I retire

before I have to start teaching this. I'd say because I talk about, give these talks about the

slowing of Moore's law and, you know, when we need to change by doing domain specific accelerators,

common questions say, what about quantum computing? The reason that comes up,

it's in the news all the time. So I think to keep in, the third thing to keep in mind is

quantum computing is not right around the corner. There've been two national reports,

one by the National Academy of Engineering and other by the Computing Consortium, where they

did a frank assessment of quantum computing. And both of those reports said, you know,

as far as we can tell, before you get error corrected quantum computing, it's a decade away.

So I think of it like nuclear fusion, right? There've been people who've been excited about

nuclear fusion a long time. If we ever get nuclear fusion, it's going to be fantastic

for the world. I'm glad people are working on it, but, you know, it's not right around the corner.

Those two reports to me say probably it'll be 2030 before quantum computing is something

that could happen. And when it does happen, you know, this is going to be big science stuff. This

is, you know, micro Kelvin, almost absolute zero things that if they vibrate, if truck goes by,

it won't work, right? So this will be in data center stuff. We're not going to have a quantum

cell phone. And it's probably a 2030 kind of thing. So I'm happy that our people are working on it,

but just, you know, it's hard with all the news about it, not to think that it's right around the

corner. And that's why we need to do something as Moore's Law is slowing down to provide the

computing, keep computing getting better for this next decade. And, you know, we shouldn't

be betting on quantum computing or expecting quantum computing to deliver in the next few

years. It's probably further off. You know, I'd be happy to be wrong. It'd be great if quantum

computing is going to commercially viable, but it will be a set of applications. It's not a general

purpose computation. So it's going to do some amazing things, but there'll be a lot of things

that probably, you know, the old fashioned computers are going to keep doing better for

quite a while. And there'll be a teenager 50 years from now watching this video saying,

look how silly David Patterson was saying. No, I just said, I said 2030. I didn't say,

I didn't say never. We're not going to have quantum cell phones. So he's going to be watching it.

Well, I mean, I think this is such a, you know, given that we've had Moore's Law, I just, I feel

comfortable trying to do projects that are thinking about the next decade. I admire people who are

trying to do things that are 30 years out, but it's such a fast moving field. I just don't know

how to, I'm not good enough to figure out what's the problem is going to be in 30 years. You know,

10 years is hard enough for me. So maybe if it's possible to untangle your intuition a little bit,

I spoke with Jim Keller. I don't know if you're familiar with Jim. And he is trying to sort of

be a little bit rebellious and to try to think that he quotes me as being wrong. Yeah. So this,

this is what you're doing for the record. Jim talks about that. He has an intuition that Moore's

Law is not in fact, in fact dead yet. And then it may continue for some time to come.

What are your thoughts about Jim's ideas in this space? Yeah, this is just, this is just marketing.

So what Gordon Moore said is a quantitative prediction. We can check the facts, right? Which

is doubling the number of transistors every two years. So we can look back at Intel for the last

five years and ask him, let's look at DRAM chips six years ago. So that would be three, two year

periods. So then our DRAM chips have eight times as many transistors as they did six years ago.

We can look up Intel microprocessors six years ago. If Moore's Law is continuing, it should have

eight times as many transistors as six years ago. The answer in both those cases is no.

The problem has been because Moore's Law was kind of genuinely embraced by the semiconductor

industry as they would make investments in similar equipment to make Moore's Law come true.

Semiconductor improving and Moore's Law in many people's minds are the same thing. So when I say,

and I'm factually correct, that Moore's Law is no longer holds, we are not doubling transistors

every year's years. The downside for a company like Intel is people think that means it's stopped,

that technology has no longer improved. And so Jim is trying to,

counteract the impression that semiconductors are frozen in 2019 are never going to get better.

So I never said that. All I said was Moore's Law is no more. And I'm strictly looking at the number

of transistors. That's what Moore's Law is. There's the, I don't know, there's been this aura

associated with Moore's Law that they've enjoyed for 50 years about, look at the field we're in,

we're doubling transistors every two years. What an amazing field, which is an amazing thing that

they were able to pull off. But even as Gordon Moore said, you know, no exponential can last

forever. It lasted for 50 years, which is amazing. And this is a huge impact on the industry because

of these changes that we've been talking about. So he claims, and I'm not going to go into the

that we've been talking about. So he claims, because he's trying to act on it, he claims,

you know, Patterson says Moore's Law is no more and look at all, look at it, it's still going.

And TSMC, they say it's no longer, but there's quantitative evidence that Moore's Law is not

continuing. So what I say now to try and, okay, I understand the perception problem when I say

Moore's Law has stopped. Okay. So now I say Moore's Law is slowing down. And I think Jim, which is

another way of, if he's, if it's predicting every two years and I say it's slowing down, then that's

another way of saying it doesn't hold anymore. And, and I think Jim wouldn't disagree that it's

slowing down because that sounds like it's, things are still getting better and just not as fast,

which is another way of saying Moore's Law isn't working anymore.

TG. It's still good for marketing. But what's your, you're not,

you don't like expanding the definition of Moore's Law, sort of naturally.

CM. Well, as an educator, you know, is this like modern politics? Does everybody get their own facts?

Or do we have, you know, Moore's Law was a crisp, you know, it was Carver Mead looked at his

Moore's Conversations drawing on a log log scale, a straight line. And that's what the definition of

Moore's Law is. There's this other, what Intel did for a while, interestingly, before Jim joined

them, they said, oh, no, Moore's Law isn't the number of doubling, isn't really doubling

transistors every two years. Moore's Law is the cost of the individual transistor going down,

cutting in half every two years. Now, that's not what he said, but they reinterpreted it

because they believed that the cost of transistors was continuing to drop,

even if they couldn't get twice as many chips. Many people in industry have told me that's not

true anymore, that basically in more recent technologies, they got more complicated,

the actual cost of transistor went up. So even the, a corollary might not be true,

but certainly, you know, Moore's Law, that was the beauty of Moore's Law. It was a very simple,

it's like E equals MC squared, right? It was like, wow, what an amazing prediction. It's so easy

to understand, the implications are amazing, and that's why it was so famous as a prediction.

And this reinterpretation of what it meant and changing is, you know, is revisionist history.

And I'd be happy, and they're not claiming there's a new Moore's Law. They're not saying,

by the way, instead of every two years, it's every three years. I don't think they want to

say that. I think what's going to happen is new technology generations, each one is going to get

a little bit slower. So it is slowing down, the improvements won't be as great, and that's why we

need to do new things. Yeah, I don't like that the idea of Moore's Law is tied up with marketing.

It would be nice if... Whether it's marketing or it's, well, it could be affecting business,

but it could also be affecting the imagination of engineers. If Intel employees actually believe

that we're frozen in 2019, well, that would be bad for Intel. Not just Intel, but everybody.

Moore's Law is inspiring to everybody. But what's happening right now, talking to people

who have working in national offices and stuff like that, a lot of the computer science community

is unaware that this is going on, that we are in an era that's going to need radical change at lower

levels that could affect the whole software stack. If you're using cloud stuff and the

servers that you get next year are basically only a little bit faster than the servers you got this

year, you need to know that, and we need to start innovating to start delivering on it. If you're

counting on your software going to have a lot more features, assuming the computers are going to get

faster, that's not true. So are you going to have to start making your software stack more efficient?

Are you going to have to start learning about machine learning? So it's a warning or call

for arms that the world is changing right now. And a lot of computer science PhDs are unaware

of that. So a way to try and get their attention is to say that Moore's Law is slowing down and

that's going to affect your assumptions. And we're trying to get the word out. And when companies

like TSMC and Intel say, oh, no, no, no, Moore's Law is fine, then people think, oh, hey, I don't

have to change my behavior. I'll just get the next servers. And if they start doing measurements,

they'll realize what's going on. It'd be nice to have some transparency on metrics for the lay

person to be able to know if computers are getting faster and not to forget Moore's Law.

Yeah. There are a bunch of, most people kind of use clock rate as a measure of performance.

It's not a perfect one, but if you've noticed clock rates are more or less the same as they were

five years ago, computers are a little better than they are. They haven't made zero progress,

but they've made small progress. So there's some indications out there. And then our behavior,

right? Nobody buys the next laptop because it's so much faster than the laptop from the past.

For cell phones, I think, I don't know why people buy new cell phones, you know, because

the new ones announced. The cameras are better, but that's kind of domain specific, right? They're

putting special purpose hardware to make the processing of images go much better. So that's

the way they're doing it. They're not particularly, it's not that the ARM processor in there is twice

as fast as much as they've added accelerators to help the experience of the phone. Can we talk a

little bit about one other exciting space, arguably the same level of impact as your work with RISC

is RAID. In 1988, you coauthored a paper, A Case for Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Disks, hence

RAID RAID. So that's where you introduced the idea of RAID. Incredible that that little,

I mean little, that paper kind of had this ripple effect and had a really a revolutionary effect.

So first, what is RAID? What is RAID? So this is work I did with my colleague Randy Katz and

a star graduate student, Garth Gibson. So we had just done the fourth generation RISC project

and Randy Katz, which had an early Apple Macintosh computer. At this time, everything was done with

floppy disks, which are old technologies that could store things that didn't have much capacity

and you had to get any work done, you're always sticking your little floppy disk in and out because

they didn't have much capacity. But they started building what are called hard disk drives, which

is magnetic material that can remember information storage for the Mac. And Randy asked the question

when he saw this disk next to his Mac, gee, these are brand new small things. Before that,

for the big computers, the disk would be the size of washing machines. And here's something

the size of a, kind of the size of a book or so. He says, I wonder what we could do with that? Well,

Randy was involved in the fourth generation RISC project here at Berkeley in the 80s. So we figured

out a way how to make the computation part, the processor part go a lot faster, but what about

the storage part? Can we do something to make it faster? So we hit upon the idea of taking a lot of

these disks developed for personal computers and Macintoshes and putting many of them together

instead of one of these washing machine size things. And so we wrote the first draft of the

paper and we'd have 40 of these little PC disks instead of one of these washing machine size

things. And they would be much cheaper because they're made for PCs and they could actually kind

of be faster because there was 40 of them rather than one of them. And so we wrote a paper like

that and sent it to one of our former Berkeley students at IBM. And he said, well, this is all

great and good, but what about the reliability of these things? Now you have 40 of these things

and 40 of these devices, each of which are kind of PC quality. So they're not as good as these

IBM washing machines. IBM dominated the storage businesses. So the reliability is going to be

awful. And so when we calculated it out, instead of it breaking on average once a year, it would

break every two weeks. So we thought about the idea and said, well, we got to address the

reliability. So we did it originally performance, but we had to do reliability. So the name

redundant array of inexpensive disks is array of these disks inexpensive like for PCs, but we have

extra copies. So if one breaks, we won't lose all the information. We'll have enough redundancy that

we could let some break and we can still preserve the information. So the name is an array of

inexpensive disks. This is a collection of these PCs and the R part of the name was the redundancy

so they'd be reliable. And it turns out if you put a modest number of extra disks in one of

these arrays, it could actually not only be as faster and cheaper than one of these washing

machine disks, it could be actually more reliable because you could have a couple of breaks even

with these cheap disks. Whereas one failure with the washing machine thing would knock it out.

Did you have a sense just like with risk that in the 30 years that followed,

RAID would take over as a mechanism for storage? I think I'm naturally an optimist,

but I thought our ideas were right. I thought kind of like Moore's law, it seemed to me,

if you looked at the history of the disk drives, they went from washing machine size things and

they were getting smaller and smaller and the volumes were with the smaller disk drives because

that's where the PCs were. So we thought that was a technological trend that the volume of disk

drives was going to be getting smaller and smaller devices, which were true. They were the size of,

I don't know, eight inches diameter, then five inches, then three inches in diameters.

And so that it made sense to figure out how to deal things with an array of disks. So I think

it was one of those things where logically, we think the technological forces were on our side,

that it made sense. So we expected it to catch on, but there was that same kind of business question.

IBM was the big pusher of these disk drives in the real world where the technical advantage

get turned into a business advantage or not. It proved to be true. And so we thought we were

sound technically and it was unclear whether the business side, but we kind of, as academics,

we believe that technology should win and it did. And if you look at those 30 years,

just from your perspective, are there interesting developments in the space of storage

that have happened in that time? Yeah. The big thing that happened, well, a couple of things

that happened, what we did had a modest amount of storage. So as redundancy, as people built bigger

and bigger storage systems, they've added more redundancy so they could add more failures. And

the biggest thing that happened in storage is for decades, it was based on things physically spinning

called hard disk drives where you used to turn on your computer and it would make a noise.

What that noise was, was the disk drives spinning and they were rotating at like 60 revolutions per

second. And it's like, if you remember the vinyl records, if you've ever seen those,

that's what it looked like. And there was like a needle like on a vinyl record that was reading it.

So the big drive change is switching that over to a semiconductor technology called flash.

So within the last, I'd say about decade is increasing fraction of all the computers in the

world are using semiconductor for storage, the flash drive, instead of being magnetic,

they're optical, well, they're a semiconductor writing of information very densely.

And that's been a huge difference. So all the cell phones in the world use flash.

Most of the laptops use flash. All the embedded devices use flash instead of storage. Still in

the cloud, magnetic disks are more economical than flash, but they use both in the cloud.

So it's been a huge change in the storage industry, the switching from primarily disk

to being primarily semiconductor. For the individual disk, but still the RAID mechanism

applies to those different kinds of disks. Yes. The people will still use RAID ideas

because it's kind of what's different, kind of interesting kind of psychologically,

if you think about it. People have always worried about the reliability of computing since the

earliest days. So kind of, but if we're talking about computation, if your computer makes a

mistake and the computer says, the computer has ways to check and say, Oh, we screwed up.

We made a mistake. What happens is that program that was running, you have to redo it,

which is a hassle for storage. If you've sent important information away and it loses that

information, you go nuts. This is the worst. Oh my God. So if you have a laptop and you're not

backing it up on the cloud or something like this, and your disk drive breaks, which it can do,

you'll lose all that information and you just go crazy. So the importance of reliability

for storage is tremendously higher than the importance of reliability for computation

because of the consequences of it. So yes, so RAID ideas are still very popular, even with

the switch of the technology. Although flash drives are more reliable, if you're not doing

anything like backing it up to get some redundancy so they handle it, you're taking great risks.

You said that for you and possibly for many others, teaching and research don't

conflict with each other as one might suspect. And in fact, they kind of complement each other. So

maybe a question I have is how has teaching helped you in your research or just in your

entirety as a person who both teaches and does research and just thinks and creates new ideas

in this world? Yes, I think what happens is when you're a college student, you know there's this

kind of tenure system in doing research. So kind of this model that is popular in America, I think

America really made it happen, is we can attract these really great faculty to research universities

because they get to do research as well as teach. And that, especially in fast moving fields,

this means people are up to date and they're teaching those kinds of things. But when you run

into a really bad professor, a really bad teacher, I think the students think, well, this guy must be

a great researcher because why else could he be here? So after 40 years at Berkeley, we had a

retirement party and I got a chance to reflect and I looked back at some things. That is not my

experience. I saw a photograph of five of us in the department who won the Distinguished Teaching

Award from campus, a very high honor. I've got one of those, one of the highest honors. So there are

five of us on that picture. There's Manuel Blum, Richard Karp, me, Randy Kass, and John Osterhaupt,

contemporaries of mine. I mentioned Randy already. All of us are in the National Academy of

Engineering. We've all run the Distinguished Teaching Award. Blum, Karp, and I all have

Turing Awards. The highest award in computing. So that's the opposite. What's happened is they're

highly correlated. So the other way to think of it, if you're very successful people or maybe

successful at everything they do, it's not an either or. But it's an interesting question

whether specifically, that's probably true, but specifically for teaching, if there's something

in teaching that, it's the Richard Feynman idea, is there something about teaching that actually

makes your research, makes you think deeper and more outside the box and more insightful?

Absolutely. I was going to bring up Feynman. I mean, he criticized the Institute of Advanced

Studies. So the Institute of Advanced Studies was this thing that was created near Princeton

where Einstein and all these smart people went. And when he was invited, he thought it was a

terrible idea. This is a university. It was supposed to be heaven, right? A university

without any teaching. But he thought it was a mistake. It's getting up in the classroom and

having to explain things to students and having them ask questions like, well, why is that true,

makes you stop and think. So he thought, and I agree, I think that interaction between a great

research university and having students with bright young minds asking hard questions the

whole time is synergistic. And a university without teaching wouldn't be as vital and

exciting a place. And I think it helps stimulate the research. Another romanticized question,

but what's your favorite concept or idea to teach? What inspires you or you see inspire the students?

Is there something that pops to mind or puts the fear of God in them? I don't know,

whichever is most effective. I mean, in general, I think people are surprised.

I've seen a lot of people who don't think they like teaching come give guest lectures or teach

a course and get hooked on seeing the lights turn on, right? You can explain something to

people that they don't understand. And suddenly they get something that's important and difficult.

And just seeing the lights turn on is a real satisfaction there. I don't think there's any

specific example of that. It's just the general joy of seeing them understand.

SL. I have to talk about this because I've wrestled. I do martial arts. Of course, I love wrestling. I'm a huge, I'm Russian. So I've talked to Dan Gable on the podcast.

So you wrestled at UCLA among many other things you've done in your life, competitively in sports

and science and so on. You've wrestled. Maybe, again, continue with the romanticized questions,

but what have you learned about life and maybe even science from wrestling or from?

CB. Yeah, in fact, I wrestled at UCLA, but also at El Camino Community College. And just right now,

we were in the state of California, we were state champions at El Camino. And in fact, I was talking

to my mom and I got into UCLA, but I decided to go to the community college, which is, it's much

harder to go to UCLA than the community college. And I asked, why did I make that decision? Because I

thought it was because of my girlfriend. She said, well, it was the girlfriend and you thought the

wrestling team was really good. And we were right. We had a great wrestling team. We actually

wrestled against UCLA at a tournament and we beat UCLA as a community college, which just freshmen

and sophomores. And part of the reason I brought this up is I'm going to go, they've invited me back

at El Camino to give a lecture next month. And so, my friend who was on the wrestling team that

we're still together, we're right now reaching out to other members of the wrestling team if we can

get together for a reunion. But in terms of me, it was a huge difference. The age cut off, it was

December 1st. And so, I was almost always the youngest person in my class and I matured later

on, our family matured later. So, I was almost always the smallest guy. So, I took kind of

nerdy courses, but I was wrestling. So, wrestling was huge for my self confidence in high school.

And then, I kind of got bigger at El Camino and in college. And so, I had this kind of physical

self confidence and it's translated into research self confidence. And also kind of, I've had this

feeling even today in my 70s, if something going on in the streets that is bad physically, I'm not

going to ignore it. I'm going to stand up and try and straighten that out.

And that kind of confidence just carries through the entirety of your life.

Yeah. And the same things happens intellectually. If there's something going on where people are

saying something that's not true, I feel it's my job to stand up just like I would in the street.

If there's something going on, somebody attacking some woman or something, I'm not standing by and

letting that get away. So, I feel it's my job to stand up. So, it's kind of ironically translates.

The other things that turned out for both, I had really great college and high school coaches and

they believed, even though wrestling is an individual sport, that we would be more successful

as a team if we bonded together, do things that we would support each other rather than everybody,

you know, in wrestling it's a one on one and you could be everybody's on their own, but he felt if

we bonded as a team, we'd succeed. So, I kind of picked up those skills of how to form successful

teams and how to, from wrestling. And so, I think one of, most people would say one of my strengths

is I can create teams of faculty, large teams of faculty grad students, pull all together for a

common goal and often be successful at it. But I got both of those things from wrestling. Also,

I think I heard this line about if people are in kind of collision, sports with physical contact

like wrestling or football and stuff like that, people are a little bit more assertive or something.

And so, I think that also comes through as, you know, and I didn't shy away from the

racist debates, you know, I enjoyed taking on the arguments and stuff like that. So,

I'm really glad I did wrestling. I think it was really good for my self image and I learned a lot

from it. So, I think that's, you know, sports done well, you know, there's really lots of positives

you can take about it, of leadership, you know, how to form teams and how to be successful.

So, we've talked about metrics a lot. There's a really cool, in terms of bench press and

weightlifting, pound years metric that you've developed that we don't have time to talk about,

but it's a really cool one that people should look into. It's rethinking the way we think about

metrics and weightlifting. But let me talk about metrics more broadly, since that appeals to you

in all forms. Let's look at the most ridiculous, the biggest question of the meaning of life.

If you were to try to put metrics on a life well lived, what would those metrics be?

Yeah, a friend of mine, Randy Katz, said this. He said, you know, when it's time to sign off,

the measure isn't the number of zeros in your bank account, it's the number of inches

in the obituary in the New York Times, was he said it. I think, you know, having,

and you know, this is a cliche, is that people don't die wishing they'd spent more time in the

office, right? As I reflect upon my career, there have been, you know, a half a dozen, a dozen things

say I've been proud of. A lot of them aren't papers or scientific results. Certainly, my family,

my wife, we've been married more than 50 years, kids and grandkids, that's really precious.

Education things I've done, I'm very proud of, you know, books and courses. I did some help

with underrepresented groups that was effective. So it was interesting to see what were the things

I reflected. You know, I had hundreds of papers, but some of them were the papers, like the risk

rate stuff that I'm proud of, but a lot of them were not those things. So people who are, just

spend their lives, you know, going after the dollars or going after all the papers in the

world, you know, that's probably not the things that are afterwards you're going to care about.

When I was, just when I got the offer from Berkeley before I showed up, I read a book where

they interviewed a lot of people in all works of life. And what I got out of that book was the

people who felt good about what they did was the people who affected people, as opposed to things

that were more transitory. So I came into this job assuming that it wasn't going to be the papers,

it was going to be relationships with the people over time that I would value, and that was a

correct assessment, right? It's the people you work with, the people you can influence, the people

you can help, it's the things that you feel good about towards the end of your career. It's not

the stuff that's more transitory.

Trey Lockerbie I don't think there's a better way to end it than talking about your family,

the over 50 years of being married to your childhood sweetheart.

Richard Averbeck What I think I can add is,

when you tell people you've been married 50 years, they want to know why.

Trey Lockerbie How? Why?

Richard Averbeck Yeah, I can tell you the nine

magic words that you need to say to your partner to keep a good relationship. And the nine magic

words are, I was wrong. You were right. I love you. Okay. And you got to say all nine. You can't

say, I was wrong. You were right. You're a jerk. You know, you can't say that. So yeah, freely

acknowledging that you made a mistake, the other person was right, and that you love them really

gets over a lot of bumps in the road. So that's what I pass along.

Trey Lockerbie Beautifully put. David,

it's a huge honor. Thank you so much for the book you've written, for the research you've done,

for changing the world. Thank you for talking today.

Richard Averbeck Thanks for the interview.

Trey Lockerbie Thanks for listening to this

conversation with David Patterson. And thank you to our sponsors, The Jordan Harbinger Show, and

Cash App. Please consider supporting this podcast by going to JordanHarbinger.com slash Lex and

downloading Cash App and using code LexPodcast. Click the links, buy the stuff. It's the best way

to support this podcast and the journey I'm on. If you enjoy this thing, subscribe on YouTube,

review it with five stars in a podcast, support it on Patreon, or connect with me on Twitter at

Lex Friedman, spelled without the E, try to figure out how to do that. It's just F R I D M A N.

And now let me leave you with some words from Henry David Thoreau.

Our life is faded away by detail. Simplify, simplify. Thank you for listening and hope to

see you next time.