Tesla and Uber Unlikely to Survive (Vol. 2)
Discussion
This is the same argument used by every internet startup ever.
Start by taking a billion people and assuming you can insert yourself in the middle of an existing transaction. Then any 'service fee' you can claim, no matter how small (and thus apparently acceptable) is multiplied up into astronomical profits.
That ignores the reality of markets, the cost of entry and the changes in human behaviour required for your vision to work. Recent examples such as WeWork show how that misunderstanding can be costly.
Start by taking a billion people and assuming you can insert yourself in the middle of an existing transaction. Then any 'service fee' you can claim, no matter how small (and thus apparently acceptable) is multiplied up into astronomical profits.
That ignores the reality of markets, the cost of entry and the changes in human behaviour required for your vision to work. Recent examples such as WeWork show how that misunderstanding can be costly.
Tuna said:
This is the same argument used by every internet startup ever.
Start by taking a billion people and assuming you can insert yourself in the middle of an existing transaction. Then any 'service fee' you can claim, no matter how small (and thus apparently acceptable) is multiplied up into astronomical profits.
That ignores the reality of markets, the cost of entry and the changes in human behaviour required for your vision to work. Recent examples such as WeWork show how that misunderstanding can be costly.
You don’t even need to charge a service fee, Facebook etc are free.Start by taking a billion people and assuming you can insert yourself in the middle of an existing transaction. Then any 'service fee' you can claim, no matter how small (and thus apparently acceptable) is multiplied up into astronomical profits.
That ignores the reality of markets, the cost of entry and the changes in human behaviour required for your vision to work. Recent examples such as WeWork show how that misunderstanding can be costly.
Tuna said:
This is the same argument used by every internet startup ever.
Start by taking a billion people and assuming you can insert yourself in the middle of an existing transaction. Then any 'service fee' you can claim, no matter how small (and thus apparently acceptable) is multiplied up into astronomical profits.
That ignores the reality of markets, the cost of entry and the changes in human behaviour required for your vision to work. Recent examples such as WeWork show how that misunderstanding can be costly.
That's only the argument for IPO marketing time. Really its "Hey VC, we can blag an IPO at this price in 5 years, give us your money to make 5 years of heavy losses and you will get it back ten fold"Start by taking a billion people and assuming you can insert yourself in the middle of an existing transaction. Then any 'service fee' you can claim, no matter how small (and thus apparently acceptable) is multiplied up into astronomical profits.
That ignores the reality of markets, the cost of entry and the changes in human behaviour required for your vision to work. Recent examples such as WeWork show how that misunderstanding can be costly.
Only thing WeWork did wrong is fail at the last hurdle.
hyphen said:
Tuna said:
This is the same argument used by every internet startup ever.
Start by taking a billion people and assuming you can insert yourself in the middle of an existing transaction. Then any 'service fee' you can claim, no matter how small (and thus apparently acceptable) is multiplied up into astronomical profits.
That ignores the reality of markets, the cost of entry and the changes in human behaviour required for your vision to work. Recent examples such as WeWork show how that misunderstanding can be costly.
That's only the argument for IPO marketing time. Really its "Hey VC, we can blag an IPO at this price in 5 years, give us your money to make 5 years of heavy losses and you will get it back ten fold"Start by taking a billion people and assuming you can insert yourself in the middle of an existing transaction. Then any 'service fee' you can claim, no matter how small (and thus apparently acceptable) is multiplied up into astronomical profits.
That ignores the reality of markets, the cost of entry and the changes in human behaviour required for your vision to work. Recent examples such as WeWork show how that misunderstanding can be costly.
Only thing WeWork did wrong is fail at the last hurdle.
Tuna said:
This is the same argument used by every internet startup ever.
Start by taking a billion people and assuming you can insert yourself in the middle of an existing transaction. Then any 'service fee' you can claim, no matter how small (and thus apparently acceptable) is multiplied up into astronomical profits.
Agreed. I'm not saying I agree with their stock price, I own a Tesla, not Tesla stock. I also called it a pipe dream on more than one occasion.Start by taking a billion people and assuming you can insert yourself in the middle of an existing transaction. Then any 'service fee' you can claim, no matter how small (and thus apparently acceptable) is multiplied up into astronomical profits.
But IF they do pull it off, it's hard to argue with the possible value of it.
IF they pull it off, I think Tesla at
ZesPak said:
Tuna said:
This is the same argument used by every internet startup ever.
Start by taking a billion people and assuming you can insert yourself in the middle of an existing transaction. Then any 'service fee' you can claim, no matter how small (and thus apparently acceptable) is multiplied up into astronomical profits.
Agreed. I'm not saying I agree with their stock price, I own a Tesla, not Tesla stock. I also called it a pipe dream on more than one occasion.Start by taking a billion people and assuming you can insert yourself in the middle of an existing transaction. Then any 'service fee' you can claim, no matter how small (and thus apparently acceptable) is multiplied up into astronomical profits.
But IF they do pull it off, it's hard to argue with the possible value of it.
IF they pull it off, I think Tesla at
hyphen said:
ZesPak said:
Tuna said:
This is the same argument used by every internet startup ever.
Start by taking a billion people and assuming you can insert yourself in the middle of an existing transaction. Then any 'service fee' you can claim, no matter how small (and thus apparently acceptable) is multiplied up into astronomical profits.
Agreed. I'm not saying I agree with their stock price, I own a Tesla, not Tesla stock. I also called it a pipe dream on more than one occasion.Start by taking a billion people and assuming you can insert yourself in the middle of an existing transaction. Then any 'service fee' you can claim, no matter how small (and thus apparently acceptable) is multiplied up into astronomical profits.
But IF they do pull it off, it's hard to argue with the possible value of it.
IF they pull it off, I think Tesla at
Good timing, Elon gave a speech today:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8506589/E...
Elon said:
'I remain confident that we will have the basic functionality for level 5 autonomy complete this year.'
So what exactly does 'basic functionality' mean? Politicians answer!https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8506589/E...
hyphen said:
Good timing, Elon gave a speech today:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8506589/E...
They can’t be far off if you watch mobileye videos Elon said:
'I remain confident that we will have the basic functionality for level 5 autonomy complete this year.'
So what exactly does 'basic functionality' mean? Politicians answer!https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8506589/E...
hyphen said:
So what exactly does 'basic functionality' mean? Politicians answer!
They've re-written the vision system from the ground up (suggesting it wasn't giving them the results they needed, despite saying their mega-scale data collection would 'solve' self-driving). It's still months away from complete (so they have no idea if the new system does actually solve the problem).I'd take 'basic functionality' to mean they have the current levels of situational awareness and a handful of party tricks. But then I'm used to engineers giving politicians answers.
hyphen said:
Good timing, Elon gave a speech today:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8506589/E...
Is that better than fully functional level 4 ? Elon said:
'I remain confident that we will have the basic functionality for level 5 autonomy complete this year.'
So what exactly does 'basic functionality' mean? Politicians answer!https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8506589/E...
Is anyone other than those who cant wait to put their existence in the hands of a programmer they never met, even bothered?
At what cost, bearing in mind they also expect this thing to do a million miles.
RobDickinson said:
People are happy to put their lives in the hands of other humans with no idea of their skill level.
Software is testable and predictable and provably safe.
Sadly, the world is not testable and predictable. Software is testable and predictable and provably safe.
I will take my chances with someone who has a dog in the fight
RobDickinson said:
People are happy to put their lives in the hands of other humans with no idea of their skill level.
Software is testable and predictable and provably safe.
No, no it really isn't. Machine learning is a delicate balance of weights across a sufficiently complex network that testing every possible input is not possible in human lifetimes, and predicting the likely output cannot 'prove' safety. The failure modes of neural nets are a very new science, and still being studied.Software is testable and predictable and provably safe.
The problem is, a human with an unknown skill level is very unlikely to spontaneously mistake a Burger King sign for a Stop Sign, or a shadow for a brick wall. This sort of 'human intuition' of what situations are expected and reasonable are just not a 'software feature' that you can code, except by building up a very long list of 'things we might expect'. Machines will still handle unexpected situations in unpredictable and potentially dangerous manners, whereas even poorly skilled humans tend to be able to apply judgment to make an appropriate decision.
I think people overestimate how hard the cognitive aspect of FSD is, and underestimate how difficult the 3D visualisation is. Once you have accurate 3d real time mapping, it's not that hard. As fully kitted out lidar test cars with HD maps have shown, you can travel 10000s of miles without a disengagement if you have every inch of route mapped out in 3D.
Also, the human aspect is perhaps overplayed. If a car can react and adjust in an instant, you don't need to know the emotional reasons for another driver making erratic decisions. You just need to be able to react in time.
Also, the human aspect is perhaps overplayed. If a car can react and adjust in an instant, you don't need to know the emotional reasons for another driver making erratic decisions. You just need to be able to react in time.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 9th July 23:21
sambucket said:
I think people overestimate how hard the cognitive aspect of FSD is, and underestimate how difficult the 3D visualisation is. Once you have accurate 3d real time mapping, it's not that hard. As fully kitted out lidar test cars with HD maps have shown, you can travel 10000s of miles without a disengagement if you have every inch of route mapped out in 3D.
Also, the human aspect is perhaps overplayed. If a car can react and adjust in an instant, you don't need to know the emotional reasons for another driver making erratic decisions. You just need to be able to react in time.
I've highlighted the big issue here. Even with LIDAR, cars are using 'offline' maps of areas, which means they're basing decisions on something that may be completely out of date, or just wrong today (a sudden contraflow system, or a burst water main, or even something as simple as someone crossing unexpectedly from the other side of the road). This is the point where the human ability to interpret an unexpected situation exceeds a computer model every single time.Also, the human aspect is perhaps overplayed. If a car can react and adjust in an instant, you don't need to know the emotional reasons for another driver making erratic decisions. You just need to be able to react in time.
Edited by sambucket on Thursday 9th July 23:21
You're absolutely right that with 100% accurate information, cars can drive themselves more accurately and more safely than humans. The problem comes when that information is not 100% accurate, and when the humans around you are doing, well, human things. Your machine driven car brakes to a perfect halt when it sees an obstruction, and the human driver in the car behind it drives straight into the rear end. And the scale of the problem means 10000s of miles without disengagement are not enough, when the cumulative car travel each day is measured in millions of miles just for the UK.
I'm happy to believe the problem will eventually be cracked, but I don't think it's nearly as soon as people would like to think.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff