←back to thread

217 points mfiguiere | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.818s | source
Show context
TeeWEE ◴[] No.41844476[source]
This results in me trusting Tesla less.

If this was fake, how do we know the robovans were not remotely operated? They might as well be too to get the stock price up?

There is no way to know. I am really doubting Tesla now. It wouldn’t surprise me that, in order to prevent mishaps during the event, everything is remotely operated…

People will say: that’s not true. But where did Tesla clearly specify this upfront?

I saw the initial fullscreen disclaimer. But that might also apply to the robovans right?

replies(8): >>41844568 #>>41844769 #>>41844881 #>>41844910 #>>41844932 #>>41845058 #>>41848103 #>>41849148 #
1. godelski ◴[] No.41844910[source]

  > how do we know the robovans were not remotely operated? 
How do you even know they were anything? It is fairly easy to mock up a concept vehicle (I mean it is still a lot of work, but nowhere near what it takes to build an actual one). You can build the shell and interior and put it on any chassis you want.

And let's be real, that robovan couldn't survive a pothole. If you watch the video of people walking out it does not look like the clearance is meaningfully different than their shoes. It is also suspicious that it doesn't seem to rise much after all the people get off. I don't have good angles from that video, so just a flag but not enough to conclude without more evidence (but this is exactly what you'd see if they built it like you do a parade float).

For the robots, I thought it was obvious they were teleoperated. Just the way they talked with people was far too natural.

Don't get me wrong, Tesla and SpaceX have done some great things. But how many times can you c̶r̶y̶ ̶w̶o̶l̶f̶ promise self-driving vehicles next year before people stop trusting you all together? I get you gotta hype (but do we? and how much?) but you gotta fulfill those promises. In 2015 he promised FSD in 2017, in 2016 he said <2018, in 2017 he said 3 but no more than 6 mo, then later that year said 2 years, and I think it's been "next year" ever year since. It's a hard problem but you can only over promise so much. And over promising like this just makes him seem like either a conman or out of touch/naive.

replies(1): >>41844942 #
2. godelski ◴[] No.41844942[source]
Honestly, it feels like faking demos is the status quo in tech right now. I can perfectly understand "illustrative" demos where you're clear that this is what you're imagining, but if you say this is how it works -- or heavily imply or demonstrate under very limited conditions while implying this is what you can expect -- it is no wonder so many people have low sentiment around tech. But do we really have to do it this way? If you need smoke and mirrors to get funding I'm not convinced that the smoke and mirrors ever stops. (and why are big players doing this? Google doesn't need funding. You're playing with fire)
replies(1): >>41845296 #
3. philistine ◴[] No.41845296[source]
Look at the first reveal of Cybertruck versus what shipped. Those vans are going to look like crap.
replies(1): >>41853456 #
4. godelski ◴[] No.41853456{3}[source]
Yeah with Elon (and anything "AI" (note: I'm an ML researcher)) it's now "I'm believe it when I see it" because there's too much over promise and under delivery.

Honestly, I'm not even super pissed at the start-ups that do this because it's "ride or die" for them. But I'm more pissed at big players doing this and experts in fields who push the over hype. Who retweet demos that are obvious fakes. It creates a lot of distrust because there's no clear "trusted authority". Sure, authority shouldn't be the only reason to trust but we can't be experts in everything (there's always trustworthy experts but good luck average person with no domain knowledge differentiating them). The system doesn't work without trust. I just hope this is recognized before it gets catastrophic. Because it is a global phenomena