[flagged]
replies(19):
Ok where is a paraplegic who's life has been fundamentally improved more then the Neuralink patient one by some of these other technologies that are "years" ahead?
Named after patient zero I am sure.
It's a horrible comparison. Why do people keep making it? This isn't Lyft vs Uber. A better comparison to Tesla FSD would be blue cruise, super cruise, drive pilot, god's eye, and every other consumer level 2 ADAS.
Or who knows, maybe they actually just do have a PR department - plenty of stuff Musk has said has just been plain untrue, like when he promised that like his money was first in to Telsa, it would be "the last out" [1] (he has since sold billions in shares now).
As for FSD, it leads by far for systems you can own, and while it is not as good as Waymo it is much cheaper and still rapidly improving. It is too early to say which approach will ultimately win.
I appreciate comments like yours that actually contribute to the debate. We need critical thinking and data. Not one-sided puff pieces out of context.
To me this metric shows that their cars are very high performing, and for most drivers they're probably the fastest accelerating cars they've ever driven. Tesla should probably default them to 'chill' mode and provide a warning about how fast the car is when you switch out of that mode.
If you instead think Tesla's promise is consumer cars, Tesla's valuation is roughly equal to the entire rest of the global auto industry, despite being only a tiny and declining fraction of global sales. The relevant competitors then are Toyota, VW, Ford, BYD, etc. etc. Objectively, as a consumer auto company Tesla seems to be stagnant and falling behind.
I guess they're also hyping vaporware humanoid robots; if you ask me a future where a significant proportion of all families on earth purchase a humanoid robot seems completely implausible. It's very Jetsons though. Maybe they'll start building flying cars too.
If 3 years ago the tech was available then how come the Neuralink patients never got that? I'm sure they'd be the first to sign up.
Distribution is part of innovation. Brain computer interfaces exist but those who would be willing to undergo the procedure to get them don't have that option, then an inefficiency exists in the market that can be filled by a competitor. Musk's companies play on the same field as everyone else, but they continue to win because operating efficiency, mind-share and tactics are all part of the game, and he is the best at winning it in many domains.
Edit: I understand the ethical considerations of such a nascent technology. I just feel that we live in a world where miracles exist that could help thousands of lives, but they move too slowly to help those lives. How long are paralyzed people waiting for a cheap way to have some more agency in the world? Is the only way to reach it being available sooner doing unscrupulous things that buck safety requirements?
We are discussing "normal people thoughts", not market sentiment.
Because other companies have ethics and follow the rules and best practices. They register their clinical trials with the NIH and they stop and ask questions if half the monkeys they test on end up dead.
I say this as a big Elon skeptic. Technical superiority is only a small piece of the puzzle. But 10 years from now, I would be very surprised if the SOTA tech you mention has a fraction as many users as Neuralink.
I really don’t see anything that will cut through the narrative now.
For instance the model y had a fatality rate of 10.6 per billion vehicle miles 4x the average.
Its also seems unreasonable to suppose that they are poorly suited to survive a crash as this doesn't seem to be indicated.
A more logical conclusion is that a box with a giant flashing distracting tablet in the center which lies and says it can drive itself gets crashed more because people are functionally incapable of going from passenger to driver at random intervals with no notice.
"All the people I believe to be smart and trustworthy and nice say that Elon Musk is wrong to disagree with them."
Elon Musk does something smart.
"No, Elon Musk did not do something smart. That's because only smart people do smart things. If he were smart, he would agree with the people that I believe to be smart and trustworthy and nice. He must have cheated or lied or stole someone else's idea which also makes him not nice and not trustworthy. How can anyone support anything he does?"
"Oh look, someone on HN pointed out that Elon Musk did something smart. They must be not smart, not trustworthy and not nice just like all the other people who disagree with things the people I believe to be smart and trustworthy and nice support. Here's a downvote!"
I don't know if they're still sending poop emojis, but "public relations" is a term that encompasses more than "press relations", and "press relations" itself encompasses more than answering questions in email.
But 2 years ago, I've talked to an old school, rather wealthy guy, and he was explaining to me that he always invested conservatively but he wants to buy Tesla stock, because Musk said they started producing Optimus robots and next year they will have thousands of those in the factory and all Tesla factory workers could be fired.
Yep, Musk knows exactly what he's doing overhyping his companies. The stock is the product.
(I admit I’m mocking your wording; in fact it has not plateaued. Just every update makes things slightly smoother in non-safety-critical ways.)
Because Tesla keeps claiming they'll have full autonomy "next year", year after year.
In 2016 Tesla claimed every Tesla car being produced had "the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver". That was a lie: https://web.archive.org/web/20161020091022/https://tesla.com...
By the end of 2020 there were supposed to be 1 million Tesla robotaxis on the road. That was also a lie: https://www.thedrive.com/news/38129/elon-musk-promised-1-mil...
Tesla sets its own benchmark and consistently fails to achieve it.
If you want to compare Waymo and Tesla FSD from a technology standpoint and claim superiority of one over the other you can't use simple values like interventions per mile. It says very little. The solutions were designed for different purposes under different constraints. That's what engineers do. If Waymo was attempting to make consumer viable self driving vehicles they would have made very different decisions and likewise for Tesla if their only goal was taxi. That should be obvious to any technologist.
I think you can support the technologies behind these companies and respect that someone on the spectrum may be struggling with trying to do what’s right for themselves and the people of Earth as a whole, but has just made a shitload of bad decisions. Many of us struggling with mental health of us can empathize, even if we fully and wholeheartedly disagree on many things.
I wonder if segregating bad drivers into a separate population affects those fatality statistics.
"So who do we think is close to Tesla with -- a general solution for self-driving? And we still don't even know really who would even be a distant second. So yes, it really seems like we're -- I mean, right now, I don't think you could see a second place with a telescope, at least we can't." [1]
That is a literal, direct, backward-looking statement about current capabilities comparing it to all existing systems. A backward-looking statement that is clearly and objectively false given their present day inability to safely deploy driverless vehicles which Waymo already achieved in 2022, let alone quantitative disengagement metrics demonstrating a level of capability between 10-100x worse than Waymo contemporaneously in 2022 [2] and inferior even to Waymo in 2015 [3]. A false statement made willingly and knowingly in official investor communications to maintain their stock price.
[1] https://www.fool.com/earnings/call-transcripts/2023/01/26/te...
[2] https://thelastdriverlicenseholder.com/2023/02/17/2022-disen...
[3] https://thelastdriverlicenseholder.com/2018/02/01/disengagem...
Thankfully Elon has already got that sorted for you! $12k, and if you sell your Tesla for a new one, you’ll have to buy it again! Doesn’t transfer with you (or the car for that matter, it just vanishes on title transfer).
This is entirely ridiculous. There is no and will be no universal device that just works, and does different things depending on just where in the brain you happen to stick it.
Electric cars have been sold since the 1800s (electric vehicles predate the 4-cycle internal combustion engine). Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda and Toyota all had serial production of EVs in the 1990s or earlier. The land speed record holder in 1900 was an electric vehicle. Tesla wasn't first, they were relatively late, they just got it right in a number of ways.
Self driving? Maybe, but there is a lot of argument about whether a Tesla is self driving. Based on the fact that Tesla themselves require a human driver ready to intervene, it isn't a credible claim.
If you're building a cheap mass market self driving vehicle that has to work everywhere you'll make completely different design decisions than a geo restricted taxi. Would you care to acknowledge that simple fact? The amount of hypotheticals you'd have to go through to compare these technologies in superiority up to this point is extensive. Go ahead, do the thought experiment. It would be a lot more interesting than a blanket interventions per mile with zero context.
Otherwise it's a false equivalence dog pile in search of Internet points. We don't need repeating of exhaustingly well known qualities of Tesla's CEO. That's not interesting, the Internet is already overrun with that.
1. FSD on a new car is currently $8k [0]
2. FSD has been transferable on buying a new car for a while - there’s usually some kind of promo [1]
3. If you don’t transfer it to a new car, it does transfer with the car [2]
—-
0: https://www.tesla.com/model3/design#overview
1: https://www.tesla.com/support/fsd-transfer
2: I bought my car used and FSD stayed with the car, the default behavior unless you use a promo like [1]
The comment you were replying to was the kind of dismissal we want to avoid on HN, but we need you to avoid swipes like this on HN. The comment would been fine without that last line. Please try to observe the guidelines, especially these ones:
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
It was $12K. And as you acknowledge, it was non-transferable until relatively recently.
Do you understand what you're saying? Too slowly in contrast to "move fast and break things" where "things" = "people"? In a thread about the risks of tesla killing pedestrians? This is classic supervillain logic.
You cannot compare using a technical metric a geofenced pre-mapped self driving technology and a general self driving technology. You can hate on their dishonest marketing all you like, but this is disingenuous.
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
Robotaxi has been in service a fraction of the time as Waymo has. And the "4000x" figure is absolutely ridiculous, I'd maybe believe 2x at best given I've seen LONG drives with Robotaxi and common FSD while Waymos get stuck / park badly around them. For both, the interventions are done remotely and I bet a lot of Waymo's ones especially are made "secretly". This while Waymo easier decides to do things like parking in middle of road instead of invoking an intervention, and has basically zero scaling prospects compared to Tesla, for which, every Tesla on the road becoming a robotaxi on the owner's command is not actually inconvincible for hw4+ cars in some years.
Neuralink "being 5x slower" sounds hardly believable in real life too, as I've seen their webgrid demo, ran it myself, and seen other people only get fractionally better scores than the person using neuralink with no limbic activity. And "5x faster" means little if the device is not practical, something Neuralink has seemingly put more effort to than others combined. Impracticability especially questions the quality of the data as its probably more "lab-like" while Neuralink patients can just navigate to benchmarks themselves on their own time and run them for fun, obivously with the utility of Neuralink.
Elon truly does lead Tesla and SpaceX, while being in a key role at Neuralink too. If you ever look at some of their demonstrations, he defers a lot to his employees for specific features/demonstrations. It is media's own issue that they hyperfocus on Elon, probably for keyword clicks.
Everything doesn't have to be about Elon. Imagine you replaced him in 2015, but still approached autonomy through mass market level 2. How would you compare them? I think you might add just a few caveats about the constraints and environments they operate in.
It’s all good, please just be mindful of this and think about how you can avoid your intended sentiment being lost next time you post this kind of comment.
I find it rather sad that the work of so many talented engineers is simply dismissed because they'd rather talk about that clown. You'd think HN could at least separate the two. There's a whole lot of people here working for a billionaire shit head.
Some engineers have become so corrupted by the culture of lying of Tesla that they're willing to lie about things that there's no need to lie about, like quarter mile times of the Cybertruck:
https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/tesla-cybertruck-beast-vs...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J3H8--CQRE
The lead engineer on the Cybertruck sadly tried to defend the lie, while admitting that they never even ran that quarter mile:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45062614
Tesla engineers will be best off moving to another company.
Tesla provably weren't "first to market" as I pointed out. Anyone could have bought an EV in 1900, more than a full century before Tesla existed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_Vehicle_Company).
Anyone could have bought one in the 1990s too.
Tesla was not first to market in any way. They became so popular that they have come to define the market in many people's minds, but there were mass market electric vehicles before Tesla made them. The Nissan Leaf was available for years before the Model S. Nissan had the first lithium battery vehicles in the 1990s.
I don't know why you are trying to martyr yourself on this hill. Being first to market rarely matters, despite what tech circles believe. The iPod, iPhone, Facebook, and Tesla were all followers in their respective markets, but have since become defining products.
At this point, even if we - for some reason - accept that Tesla was first to market with the Roadster, it isn't proving to be a lasting advantage. BYD is selling more electric cars than them starting last year, a trend that has gone into hyperdrive this year as Tesla sales go negative for the 2nd year in a row while BYD continues to dominate.