The lab behind Waymo and Google Glass that wants to reshape your life

A note before we get started, we talk a lot about Google and its parent company Alphabet in this episode. Google is a financial supporter of NPR. This is the TED Radio Hour. Each week, groundbreaking TED talks. Our job now is to dream big. Delivered at TED conferences. To bring about the future we want to see. Around the world. To understand who we are. From those talks, we bring you speakers and ideas that will surprise you. You just don't know what you're going to find. Challenge you. We truly have to act for ourselves. Why is it noteworthy? And even change you. I literally feel like I'm a different person. Yes. Do you feel that way? Ideas worth spreading. From TED and NPR. I'm Manush Zamoroni. For your safety, the doors will remain locked when we arrive. A few decades ago, the idea of a self-driving car sounded like science fiction. But now, these cars are becoming pretty commonplace in cities like San Francisco, LA, Phoenix. My ride is here. I'm taking a Waymo. One of the leaders in the self-driving car industry is Waymo. Thank you. And passengers have taken to social media to share their experiences. Y'all, I always wanted to try one of these things and maybe I'm about to do it. With a wide range of reactions. Always moving. It was so weird having no driver in the seat. Y'all, I cannot believe this. I've got this whole car to myself driving on the road. This passenger in particular loved that Waymo cut out the need for human interaction. This is just such a nice experience to be in here completely by myself. When you hop on a lift or an Uber, you know, there's another person driving and nothing against them, but it's just like, you don't have your privacy, you don't have your space. Of course, there are also a lot of videos made by passengers showing the funny and glitchy sides of this technology. One TikTok video showed a group of Waymo vehicles honking at each other incessantly at 4 a.m. in a San Francisco neighborhood. Another captured a man who'd fallen asleep during his ride and couldn't be roused. Hey, it's time to wake up. Yet another documented a man who had no way to stop his Waymo, which had started driving in circles in a parking lot. I'm in a Waymo car. Connected to rider support. Yeah, I got a flight to catch. Why is this thing going in a circle? I'm getting dizzy. It's looking what it's doing. I understand. I'm really, really sorry, Mike. We're currently working with the situation on the vehicle. Is it circling around the car? Some say they feel safer in self-driving cars. Others feel less safe. So the question becomes, who do you trust more? A human or a machine? Right now, we live in a world where mostly humans are driving cars. And more than a million people a year die in car accidents around the world. The vast majority of them, something like 95% of those deaths are caused by driver error. This is Astro Teller. He is the CEO of X. This is the company Alphabet's so-called Moonshot Factory, where some of the brightest minds in technology come together to try to figure out how they can solve some of the world's biggest problems. And human fallibility is one of the many issues they're trying to hack. They want you to be able to trust machines more than humans. Their self-driving car project, now known as Waymo, was one of their first Moonshots. And at the time, the big question they were asking was, what if we could see cars as being the modern equivalent of elevators? There was a time when elevators were operated by humans. And we now, when we look backwards, can see that as very quaint. And so that was the radical proposed solution, that sort of vision of the future. And then there was a number of reasons to believe it might be possible. Maybe the best example was that DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency for the United States, had been running these grand challenges for a number of years to encourage academics in the United States in particular to work on self-driving vehicles. Didn't they have races out in the desert? Exactly. So they had a race out in the desert in 2004. It was about 150 miles and nobody won. Nobody finished? Nobody even finished. But in 2005, they had the same race, same 150 miles, and three teams finished. And the team that came in first was the car was called Stanley, and the team was run by a professor at Stanford named Sebastian Thrun. Sebastian Thrun ended up working at Google, and a few years later in 2010, he started X, the Moonshot Factory, bringing Astro in as his co-founder with the hopes of building a 21st century Bell Labs, an incubator for bold, life-changing inventions. So the first project was the self-driving cars, and X was formed as a kind of place for that to live and to do more things like that. Projects like a self-driving car often start from a seed of an idea that seems impossible. That is the foundation on which X's Moonshot Factory was built. Astro and his team aimed to tackle some of the world's biggest problems by treating risk and failure not as obstacles, but as steps toward innovation. So today we're spending the hour with Astro Teller to explore the highs and lows of many of the Moonshots at X, technologies that are ahead of their time, some which succeeded, and some that have failed, but helped spark other groundbreaking projects. To start, let's talk about what a Moonshot even is. A Moonshot, at least from our perspective, has to have three basic components. First, there has to be a huge problem with the world that you can name and want to solve. Second, you have to have a radical proposed solution that we can pre-agree it would very likely solve that huge problem with the world. And then three, there has to be some kind of breakthrough technology that even if it's just gives us a glimmer of a hope that we could make that radical proposed solution, it's a testable hypothesis. You have a proposed way of starting. So once we have those three things, we would call that a Moonshot story hypothesis. And that's not the end of the journey. That's just permission to begin the journey. And one of the failure modes for anyone who's ever tried to get an innovation factory going is that as soon as you have the first thing that's going really well, it becomes rational in the short term for the leaders of the innovation effort to start focusing more and more of their energy on the thing that's going really well. And so we've set up a process called graduation. As soon as something could live on its own, it needs to not be here anymore. Once it's starting to scale, we want it to leave. So I guess it's like almost saying like you guys are the test kitchen, you're finding the best recipes, but let's say you land on the ultimate cupcake, you're not going to start a cupcake factory. The cupcake people are going to leave. They're going to figure out how to make lots of cupcakes, sell them, market them, etc. But you guys are going to go back and figure out another recipe. Exactly right. Our job is not to scale things. You're exactly right that we're a test kitchen. But our job is not just to prove that the technical feasibility of something, but to try to ask and answer all of the questions, to burn down all of the major risks around whether this really could be a once in a generation opportunity for the world. We use the word moonshots to remind us to keep our visions big, to keep dreaming. Here's Astro Teller on the TED stage. And we use the word factory to remind ourselves that we want to have concrete visions, concrete plans to make them real. But I have a secret for you. The Moonshot Factory is a messy place. But rather than avoid the mess, pretend it's not there. We've tried to make that our strength. We spend most of our time breaking things and trying to prove that we're wrong. That's it. That's the secret. Run at all the hardest parts of the problem first. Get excited and cheer. Hey, how are we going to kill our project today? We've got this interesting balance going where we allow our unchecked optimism to fuel our visions. But then we also harness enthusiastic skepticism to breathe life, breathe reality into those visions. How do you manage that financially? If you, I'm sure someone is like, if we throw this much money, this much time, and this many people at this problem, I know we can crack this. Is that enough? Or would you hate to hear that argument? I would hate to hear that argument. Our goal is not radical innovation. Our goal is to pursue radical innovation efficiently. We're trying to systematize the process. The question we have to ask over and over and over again is what is the reward risk ratio for each of the ideas that we're considering? We're trying to burn down risk and discover which one or 2% of the things that we look at actually could be very large, enduring businesses that turn out to be really great for the world. Let's go back to Waymo, the self-driving car. It must have been, ha ha, bumps in the road, but talk me through the process. How do you get from an idea, a race in the desert to being incubated in the moonshot factory and then actually getting to the point that you haven't been killed, that you meet all the criteria? By 2010, we had a car, it was a Prius, that could drive itself, it could turn its own wheel with a little motor and it could apply the brake pedal and the gas pedal. The first big thing that we did was we said to the team, here are 10 different 100 mile stretches of road in the Greater Bay Area. We want you to drive each of these 100 mile stretches at least once each with nobody touching the gas pedal, the brake pedal or the steering wheel. You can try as many times as you want, you have to be really safe about it, but you tell us when you've accomplished these 10 different 100 mile stretches and it took the team about a year to accomplish that and we learned a ton and the fact that they accomplished it was a real moment for us to go, oh, we might be the right amount too early here because we got excited about it and burned down some of the risk which then gets other people to believe in something that at first, when we started, there was no one else in the world working on that seriously as a potential business. In a minute, the future of self-driving cars and the origin story of another one of X's moonshots that didn't go quite as well, Google Glass. On the show today, an hour with the CEO of the moonshot factory called X, Astro Teller. I'm Anush Zamorodi and you're listening to the TED Radio Hour from NPR. We'll be right back. A quick note before we get back to the show. Woo wee. Boy, listeners had a lot of opinions on Victor Ripar Belly, the tech CEO who we interviewed for part one of our series called Are the Kids Alright? This was a conversation about AI in the classroom. People were fascinated. They were freaked out. They were also outraged. We are so glad this episode sparked a lot of debate and conversation in Spotify, on Facebook. But also, if you want to dig deeper into some of the ideas that Victor and I talked about, what role should governments play in managing AI, what ethical responsibilities do AI CEOs have? Listen to our TED Radio Hour Plus episode this week. We get into all of it. We would also love you, of course, to become a Plus subscriber and support this show and public radio generally. Check it out. Keep the thoughts coming and thanks. It's the TED Radio Hour from NPR. I'm Anush Zamorodi. Today we're spending the hour with Astro Teller. He is an entrepreneur, computer scientist, and the CEO of X, Alphabet's so-called Moonshot Factory. With all of their projects, there are, of course, technical challenges to navigate. But there are also other big hurdles like laws and regulations and whether the public even wants their new technology. I remember there was a period where a lot of the conversation about self-driving cars, it really wasn't about, oh my gosh, they're on the road. It was very philosophical. It was the trolley question. How will a self-driving car decide if it's faced with having to go around a crowd, killing potentially two people versus five people? It was all very theoretical. Now, fast forward to today. Waymo is operating in multiple cities. Where do you think the public acceptance is, though? Are people ready for this? Are they ready for it in certain places? I think the public acceptance in cities where Waymo isn't yet is all over the map. There are cities that are really excited to have Waymo come. I'm sure there are people who are nervous because they have never experienced a self-driving car. What I will tell you is that in places where there are a lot of self-driving cars like San Francisco or Austin, Phoenix, Los Angeles, I've watched people who have never experienced would never J-Walk across the street because they don't trust the humans to stop. J-Walk in front of self-driving cars because they're that sure that the self-driving car will do the right thing. Oh, wow. I actually think we need to think about as a society how we'll trust that high start to change how we use our cities. I mean, let's talk about some of the negative pushback. So earlier in 2025, there were those protests over U.S. immigration enforcement in Los Angeles and several Waymo cars were vandalized. They were set on fire. The sense was that those cars were sort of stand-ins for frustration with automation, with corporate power, with surveillance. That must have been really hard for you to watch. It was, but I would suggest that we have some sizable social and civic challenges as a society. And ultimately, we're going to need to address how our society functions through public policy decisions. So I acknowledge that people are potentially scared and frustrated about the future, but I don't believe that those fears and that frustration is really about self-driving cars. I think it's a much broader set of things, and I'm not minimizing them at all, but I think that the solutions to those problems are fundamentally decisions about how we're going to organize our society and asking some corporation to sort of tweak its technology in one direction or another. I don't think it's going to solve those problems. For people who maybe are like, well, what do you mean? What is that vision for a world where autonomous cars are the norm and it's a good thing for everyone? How could it change safety or traffic or I guess even the way we design cities? Well, so Waymo has been inundated with requests for people to be able to put their kids into the self-driving cars to send their kids to various places. In a way that those parents would never have been okay to put their kid, this is 14 and older for right now, into an Uber or a Lyft car with a human driver who they didn't know. So that's an example where there's an affordance because there isn't a driver that's making the parents able to get their kids where they need to go, feel safe about their kids, and then they can do something else with their time if they weren't able to drive their kids at that time. So I think the positive knock on effects of these mini buses that can stop anywhere and go to anywhere in a city, I'm hoping will have a really positive and profound change on how cities function. I would love to talk about one of my favorite topics, which is technology that we have on our bodies and that enhances potentially our human functions. Can we talk about Google Glass? For sure. Okay, because that has had a very interesting trajectory. Just to remind people, 2013 Google launched Glass. We're going to do something pretty magical here. So tell me now, who wants to see a demo of Glass? This was glasses that had like a little display above one of the eyes. The wearable technology contains a battery, tiny computer, camera and a wireless link and can broadcast whatever the user sees. Could take photos, it could send messages, it could connect to your phone all hands free. When, what was the big problem you were trying to solve then at that point? We spend so much of our lives in the digital world in a way that feels deeply disconnected from our lives in the physical world. And that's a function of the user interfaces that we have with our computers and with our phones. You'd be surprised, being on your phone actually takes about 10 or 12 seconds just to sort of like get it out, unlock it, go to the app that you want. If you have glasses and it's, for example, able, if you just say take a picture and you get the picture, that was a one second activity, not a 12 second activity. It allows you to get much more natural pictures and to get them in a much more natural way. There doesn't have to be such a large schism between our experience of our lives in the physical world and our experience of our lives in the digital world. So remind us what happened. Why didn't it take off? Because when you put it that way, like not looking at our phones, I'm thinking of my aching shoulders and neck and all the hunched teenagers that wander around my neighborhood. That sounds like a great idea. What happened? I'm sure it wasn't just these two things, but I'll tell you what I believe the top two things were. Okay. The first is there was a camera on Google Glass and I think society was still getting used to the idea that there were a lot of cameras everywhere. That was something that Google Glass bore the brunt of and societies moved forward in the last 12, 13 years. I think we feel very differently about the idea that there are phones and cameras kind of constantly around us. The other issue was we really designed Glass to be a learning platform. We knew in the early days of Glass that it wasn't a product. We were so clear on that that we started what was called the Explorer Program and we were giving it to people who were explicitly signing up to give us feedback about what this wanted to become as a product. But along the way, people started taking it very seriously as a status symbol and wearing it as a status symbol. Once you put on Google Glass, it's suddenly just a part of you. All right, Google is telling Google Glass users as for permission when using Glass to take pictures of others that can get kind of creepy. And we let ourselves fall into an understanding of Glass as being a product when it really wasn't yet. So, when you say it wasn't a product, do you mean it was more like a prototype or something for people to test? From a design perspective, it was incredibly solid and polished. But a product isn't just how well designed the industrial design is. A product is also a deep understanding of what value you're delivering to whoever's receiving it and what they expected to get from it. And we didn't know what it was good for yet. So for example, we were giving it to and working with independent filmmakers. And what we weren't telling them, this is definitely how you should make cinema verite going forward. But we were asking, is this useful? What would you do with this? We suspected that a lot of kind of prosumer activity would happen with Glass. So if you were a waiter at a restaurant or the major D at a restaurant or a nurse in a hospital, could Glass be useful? Yeah, almost certainly. But how would you use that? We didn't know. So that was the point of the Explorer program was getting it into the hands of these people so they could teach us what they wish it would do so that we could prototype the applications essentially for Glass that sort of met them where they were. But it did get used, didn't it? Because I remember hearing that it was being used to train pilots and surgeons and that it had sort of an industrial use case that was very successful. Is that wrong? You're right. We had focused too much on consumers. Whereas very quietly in the background, it was actually people on like oil rigs, people who were maintaining airplanes, nurses in hospitals who were the ones who were like, please don't take this away from me. I need it for my job now. And so over time, we pivoted to be where people were finding use in it. Would you say that this was a device that you didn't get the timing right, that you were too early? Yes, we were too, too early in that case. We learned a lot from it and Google through Android, XR and working with Warby Parker and Samsung is now announced that we're doing a newer version of this. So its time has come again. I think that the timing is right now. But that's 12 years later. As you pointed out, 2013 was kind of a while ago. So we were too, too early. So as you mentioned, now Alphabet is working with Warby Parker and some other companies on smart glasses with features that have like live translation and travel guide functions. And you have competition. This is a market where Rayban Meta glasses are offering similar tools. How do you feel gun shy going into this? Or are you like, oh, we've been here. We know how to go forward. I think that the time is now. I think people are excited for these values. I think they're comfortable with these form factors and the technology has moved forward. The light basically can be projected into the lens of glasses in a way that then reflects into your eye. So it feels much more seamless, much more like a natural pair of glasses than it did before. And that's also helping with consumer acceptance. So I predict that this becomes a significant way that we interact with technology over the next decade. I mean, it feels like this sort of wheel is turning faster and faster. I remember when people thought you were kind of a jerk for wearing AirPods, like tech bro wearing AirPods. And now, I mean, everybody wears AirPods or earbuds or whatever you want to call them. But there's still the issue of fundamental human things like privacy and not knowing when someone can take a photo of you, for example, or can maybe have facial recognition and know your name, even though you haven't even spoken to them. There's the cosmetic sort of acceptance. And then there are these bigger sort of societal norms and agreements that we make with society. Strangers without even knowing it. Do you think some of those are going to change as well? Or I see like my 15-year-old is very conscientious about asking people before she can take a photo despite the fact that everyone's taking pictures all the time. Right. And I think the problems you just described are very real and we need to work through them as a society. But I don't think they have anything to do with glasses per se. If you're on vacation in Hawaii and you're enjoying your breakfast, there are 30 phones all around you. People could be taking photos of you without asking. You hope that they won't. They could already be running facial recognition on those photos to find out who you are. So we as a society need to work through the things that you just described. But I think that the introduction of glasses is not going to make the problems substantially different than it already is. So you've seen how ideas just state through institutions, through generations. But I think that the word... Am I right in saying that the word that you often use is compost, that ideas go back and sort of I guess maybe are part of the soil in which new ideas grow? Is that what you call it? Yeah, we call it moonshot compost. But if you worked here at X, one of the things we would need to help you with is how to feel okay about stopping something that you've worked really hard on. That is emotionally challenging for all of us, no matter how intellectually honest we're trying to be. And so we have over time developed a lot of different ways to help people see past the initial hurt and sadness of having to end something that we're really excited about and worked really hard on. One of the things that we've learned is part of how X works and it helps people to remind them of this is to say to you as you're ending something, we thrive on moonshot compost. What that means is when you stop your project, that is not a rejection of solving the problem you were really passionate about solving. The problem will stay here with us and will be inspired by that problem still. We don't have to lose the software, the hardware, even the partnerships that you built as part of this. It's all going to go back into the metaphorical dirt here at X and we have lots of really great examples where we were doing something, it didn't quite work out, but after a break we came back in a different way and ended up with a much better solution. And so we can see the initial roots, the germination of that new idea in the leftovers from the old idea, which is one of the reasons we celebrate failure the way we do is because failure is learning and helping remind people about moonshot compost is a way to help them understand that cycle and feel better about it. I am so curious whether that cycle is speeding up because of artificial intelligence. I mean, as I think normal people feel like, oh my gosh, this artificial intelligence thing is real, but you of course have been talking about it for decades. Can you tell us more about, I mean, it's baked into all the projects we've been talking about. Has it sped up the cycle of test and fail, test and fail for you and your team? It has. We use artificial intelligence in almost everything that we build, but we also use aspects of artificial intelligence and machine learning as tools in helping us to do what we do faster and faster. So yes, that's true as well. Because a lot of the things that we do here at X, not all of them, but a lot of them have some aspect of getting in contact with the physical world, the real world in sort of non-trivial ways. We don't tend to work on things that are just digital. We tend to be a bit rate limited by the physical world, making a physical prototype, getting them into the world, having experiences with them in the world and getting that feedback. So we are moving faster, but maybe less faster than you might imagine because the physical world has its own sort of complexity and demands that artificial intelligence can't entirely resolve. When we come back, Astro lets us in on some of the latest moon shots at X that aim to solve some of the world's most complex and urgent problems, like climate change. On the show today, the head of X, Alphabet's moonshot factory, Astro Teller. I'm Manish Zamorodi and you're listening to the TED Radio Hour from NPR. Back in a minute. It's the TED Radio Hour from NPR. I'm Manish Zamorodi. Today on the show, we're talking to Astro Teller, the CEO of X, Alphabet's so-called moonshot factory. So far, we've heard the origin stories of two of X's most public moonshots, Waymo, the self-driving car company, and Google Glass. But the technologists at X have worked on countless other projects that most of us have probably never heard of, ones that are working to improve our food systems. So the first initiative we did was to take our robots to the seed banks, others that are trying to protect our oceans. What we do is we put cameras underwater, we put sensors around, and we're able to find still more working to connect some of the most remote areas in the world to the Internet. The authorities of the two countries that we had connected, they found it incredible to believe. One of the current projects in the works is called Tapestry. We got so many times to the cusp of a moonshot and then realized that the way the electric grid around the world, including in this country, is functioning won't allow for those moonshots in various ways. Let me unpack this sum. The grid is the world's largest machine. It's the world's most complex machine, and it's the world's most expensive machine. The people who run the grid around the world are good people, they're smart people, and they kind of barely have a handle on what they're doing because the thing that they're operating was cobbled together in any large place like the United States over 120 years. So if you go to any grid operator and say, show me a map of where every wire is on your grid, every inverter, every transformer, they literally don't have that map. So in order to help grid operators of the world get to the place where we can get electricity to everyone who needs it cheaply, reliably, effectively, ideally clean with as low a carbon footprint as possible, we started a moonshot about seven years ago at X called Tapestry with the aspiration long term to help make software services that could help them to manage the grid that they currently have to plan for the future and ultimately to optimize it in real time. And so our Tapestry moonshot is now helping grid operators in this country, in Chile, in New Zealand, we're starting in the UK, we're starting in South Africa, just starting in Australia. So we're really proud and excited about the help that that moonshot can bring to the world at a time when the grid is groaning under the weight of change and we depend on it, humanity depends on it for how we grow our food, how we sort of take care of people in hospitals, how we charge our cars increasingly and hundreds of other things. So what does that look like if this gets a successful rollout to all these places and people who work on the grid have more knowledge, I guess, of what exactly is operating and I suppose can back each other up if it comes to, I mean, we hear here in the United States about entire counties going dark because they're not connected to another grid. What does it look like if this is a success? Yeah, let me give you a really concrete example. There are weirdly long wait times to plug almost anything into the grid. If you have a wind farm, a solar field, a data center, almost anything, and you want to plug it into the grid, it's both a legal and moral obligation on the part of the grid operators to have their very smartest people pour over lots of future what ifs and try to imagine in all kinds of weird scenarios, would plugging this thing into the grid, let's say it's a solar field, would that hurt the grid in any way or cause our grid to go dark? These are very complex machines. Yeah. The problem is, if it takes you a month to figure out whether it's safe to plug that solar field into the grid, in the month you've spent thinking about that, five more solar fields got onto the back of the line. And so when you hear, this is called the interconnect queue for any grid operator in the world, and the wait times vary from about five years to sometimes more than 10 years, which is causing it to be financially non-starter to actually build anything if you're going to have to wait in lines that long to be allowed to plug into the grid. So this is an example where everything is sort of broken down. And we've spent several years with the country of Chile and their national grid, which is called SEN, CEN. And after having tested the tapestry software for a number of years, they have now made it the sort of way that they're processing their, among other things, their interconnect queue. And they've said that we've sped up the way that they can safely check whether something can be plugged into the grid, where they believe it's both more safe because we're running a lot more scenarios for them. And it is happening in one 30th the time, so in a day instead of a month. And that is transforming the country of Chile's ability to get things off the queue and to start to shrink that interconnect queue. So that is one very important, but very real, concrete way that the grid is struggling. And with the use of the right new software, it could be performing in a much better way. So just to lay it out, you're talking about transitioning entire countries to solar, to wind power, to renewables faster. I mean, yes, that also can be part of it. But to be clear, if you wanted to plug a coal-fired power plant onto the grid, or if you wanted to plug an aluminum smelter onto the grid, you have to wait in that same line. Even a large building like a hospital has to wait in that same line. Can I ask you though about climate? Because if we talk about the moonshot criteria, big problem, radical solution, plausible path. Climate, that would definitely be at the top of the list of something you would want to tackle. Is that... are you thinking of ways you can make a dent in global warming in the next decade with your moonshots? For sure. The way that humanity is affecting the Earth, and the way that those changes in the Earth are affecting us, is real and it's going to continue. So, basic observation. Right now, humanity makes, sort of depending on how you count, about $10 trillion of stuff every year. And we use it to varying degrees, sometimes for, you know, an afternoon, sometimes for 50 years, like a building. And then it goes into landfill. Almost all the stuff we made, the physical stuff we make, eventually makes it into landfill. But the stuff that goes to landfill has already been so processed. There's a lot of embodied value still left. We just don't know how to get it out. So, rough order of magnitude. Think about a plastic bottle that can't, for whatever reason, be recycled. Spoiler alert, 90% of what we put into the blue bins goes to landfill. It does not go to a recycler. I know, it makes me cry, Astro. I know, it's, yes, and we as humanity can do better. What if we saw this process of every year taking $10 trillion of stuff, kind of getting some value out of it, and then putting about $5 trillion of remaining value into landfill. See those landfills is the world's greatest resource. If we could only get the rest of that embodied value back out again, we could be a real circular economy. So, we have built a system here at Exx, a moonshot for circularity. We aspire to do this with things like concrete and textiles and electronic waste. But it happens that we're starting with plastic. And we actually can at about 10 miles an hour, like on a fast conveyor belt, look at everything going by and know what its molecular makeup is, so that we can route each of these things to the kind of recycling that will allow us to get it back down to the molecules in the right way. It turns out there's a lot of different recycling. You can mechanically recycle things, kind of chew them up with big metal teeth. You can heat them to sort of melt them. There's other kinds of chemical recycling processes, and actually you can have little buggies eat them, biological recycling of various kinds. But if you don't know what's in it, you can't actually send them to the right place or parameterize those recycling situations to get the best out of the things that you're sending into those different areas. So, this project, which is called Metera, has made a lot of progress, is working with some companies around the world. We actually had a big party late last year. They filled a tanker truck full of sort of virgin oil that can be put back into the making of plastic bottles entirely from plastic that had been rejected by recyclers and was headed to landfill. That was a really nice moment for us. So, it does seem to sort of perfectly embody this idea of like, it will scale if it can make money and is also a good thing for the planet. I mean, this could change the entire sort of ecosystem of how we use materials and get rid of materials. Exactly. And so, When will we know, Astro? When will we know if you can do this? Well, I mean, we know we can do it to some extent, and these are long journeys. When you look at something like Google Brain that came from X, you know, that's having its moment in the sun now, that was sort of depending on how you count almost 15 years that sort of caused the, or was one of the things that caused the modern explosion of machine learning in society. Waymo, which we talked about, that was 15 years ago. Wing, the Drones for Package delivery, they're now doing a lot of deliveries in a range of places around the world. They're scaling quickly, and they started about 12 years ago. So, if you look at something like Matera, which is about five years old, I would be very hopeful that seven years from now, we all take it for granted that most of our plastic does get recycled, or certainly will soon get to be recycled. But part of radical innovation is it takes time. I wish I could make it differently, but that's just how it works. I wonder, do you attract, do you think, a different type of person to come work for you? I mean, we're reading these days about these huge financial packages being offered by Mark Zuckerberg to AI, software engineers, that this is like sort of there's a hiring arms race going on. Does it change how you do business and how you attract the sort of most creative technical minds to the Moonshot Factory? Not much, honestly. I think the people who want to work at a Moonshot Factory are a bit of a different breed. If you're looking for a highly stable environment, this is the wrong place to come. People need to be very comfortable with ambiguity and a high rate of change in order to be comfortable at X. We actually joke that we're chaos pilots. If you want to do that hard, scary explorer work to try to make the next swarm with us, then this place might be for you. It's just a very different person who wants that kind of a thing. You are kind of a mythic figure in Silicon Valley. I mean, on the TV show, you're a character on there as well. But this idea that you're on your rollerblades, there was one profile that was written, I think it was on Halloween and you were dressed as Gandalf sort of gliding around the place. You've been around for a while. You represent sort of, I think, hard technical knowledge combined with real whimsy. Is that a fair assessment? It is. I mean, I think there's two separate things going on. I would never do something that was inauthentic. So I'm showing up as a real version of myself, partly because I want to encourage everyone else here to show up as a real version of themselves. We're not going to be an extraordinary group of explorers who can have great psychological safety and whose ideas can clash with each other in really interesting ways where the sparks that come from those clashes turn out to be the real gold dust that we value if we aren't all at 100%. But I am also sending a signal to people not to take me too seriously, not to take themselves too seriously, and that it's possible to be intensely serious about what we're trying to accomplish in the long run for humanity while not doing it in a way that's so serious we can't find those unexpected gems. No one ever created something really unique and unusual while gritting out determinedly the process. Humor and silliness are actually very close to the wellsprings of creativity, not kind of grim determination. So when I show up as Gandalf, I mean, I like Gandalf, he's one of the people I want to be when I grow up, but it's also my way of trying to disarm people and remind them that they have so much inside them that they're not letting out and that this is a safe place to do that. Because if I want you to say that one in 100 things that's really brilliant and everyone didn't see coming and they're like, what? You have to feel equally safe saying 99 things that are just wrong. And that has to not just be barely okay with people, it has to delight them. You make it sound so easy, Astro. Well, like I said, the facts, what we have to work towards, the facts are really easy. It is really simple. It's actually operationalizing it. You don't have to operationalize it with Gandalf costumes and roller blades. But one way or another, you have to send a thousand signals to people that you're serious about what you want from them. The unlearning that you're asking from your team, you have to make them feel safe and like it's not a dumb thing for them to do to show up in the ways that you're saying you want them to show up. That's the hard part. That was Astro Teller. He's the co-founder and CEO of X, Alphabet's Moonshot Factory. If you'd like to learn more about their projects, check out the Moonshot podcast that Astro hosts himself. You heard clips from it earlier in the show. To see Astro Teller's full talk, just go to ted.com. Thank you so much for listening to our show today. If you liked it, got something out of it, please leave us a comment on Spotify or email us at tedradiohour.npr.org. We read every comment and email and we love hearing from you. This episode was produced by Katie Montalion and edited by Sanaz Meshkinpour and me. Our production staff at NPR also includes James Delahoussi, Rachel Faulkner-White, Matthew Cloutier, Fiona Gehran, and Harshana Hada. Our executive producer is Irene Noguchi. Our audio engineer was Jimmy Kealy. Our theme music was written by Romteen Arablui. Our partners at TED are Chris Anderson, Roxanne Hylash, and Daniela Balarezzo. I'm Manush Zamorodi and you've been listening to the TED Radio Hour from NPR.