7 ms·

It is because Musk is making claims that are not technically possible, and may never be technically possible. Experts have warned him against making these claim

It is because Musk is making claims that are not technically possible, and may never be technically possible. Experts have warned him against making these claims, but he is in contempt of them. So, it is no wonder why people are leaving. Knowing how Silicon Valley operates, it would be likely that he would copy somebody's groundbreaking research (without giving proper credit) and make a few changes (to commercialize it, with gimmicky features) and have his claim to fame.

mpfundstein 5y ago
'may never' and here u got it.
johncoogan 5y ago
By "never be technically possible" do you mean: Not possible in the usual 10 year timeframe we consider for Silicon Valley type companies. Or Never in a million years, completely violates the laws of physics.
xedeon 5y ago
> Musk is making claims that are not technically possible Which ones specifically?
seriousquestion 5y ago
If he had listened to the "experts", there would be no Tesla and no SpaceX.
- Tallasatree 5y ago
  Love it (no sarcasm)
- abxytg 5y ago
  If he had listened to experts, Tesla's little driver assist would not be called 'autopilot' and ending in 4 hour long lithium fueled human barbecues.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    Less people have died from Autopilot than eating lettuce contaminated with E. coli over a decade. Everyone still eats lettuce. Stupid people doing stupid things on Autopilot (watching a film [Florida], jumping in the back seat [Texas]) would’ve died doing stupid things eventually. Can’t blame Autopilot for when the monkey tries to defeat the safety system. No system is foolproof. That doesn’t make Musk any less of a liar (with his successes amplifying the hopium), but let’s not pretend people aren’t culpable for their failings. The nuance is important.
    - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
      I don't think "Well you know, these people are idiots and they'd have killed themselves anyway" is going to win any hearts and minds. Or persuade a jury, if it ever comes to that. No system is foolproof. But systems that encourage or tolerate foolish and dangerous behaviour can't be considered well-designed.
    - Arainach 5y ago
      You can blame the system when it misleads its users. To this day, the Model S configurator calls the system "Autopilot" and uses "Full Self-Driving Capability", "Navigate on Autopilot", and "Full Self-Driving Computer" as bullet points of things it can currently do. https://i.imgur.com/3cQRMwZ.png https://i.imgur.com/3cQRMwZ.png https://www.tesla.com/models/design#overview https://www.tesla.com/models/design#overview The fine print isn't a justification when you're saying as loud as possible that this is a magic machine that does everything. Describing it as such is misleading. For comparison, here is how Cadillac describes Super Cruise, a comparably-rated driver assist suite: "Super Cruise" drive assistance feature. That's it. That's all you get when picking out the car. It frames it as an assistance, not a replacement or autopilot. If you go into details, you get "A driver assistance feature that allows hands-free driving under compatible highway driving conditions" https://www.cadillac.com/sedans/ct5/build-and-price/packages https://www.cadillac.com/sedans/ct5/build-and-price/packages If you search out their detailed marketing materials, the message is consistent: "Hands off the wheel. Eyes on the road." "Adaptive cruise control". "Stay centered". "Lane change on demand". Note that none of these promise that the computer takes over everything. The closest they come is "the first true hands-free driving-assistance", and that word assistance is absolutely key in framing this as not a replacement for all driving. https://www.cadillac.com/world-of-cadillac/innovation/super-cruise https://www.cadillac.com/world-of-cadillac/innovation/super-...
- toiletfuneral 5y ago
  genuinely curious, what experts said you couldn't build electric cars or reusable rockets? are you taking about investors?
- vaer-k 5y ago
  It was the experts that you disdain with quotation marks, but the rest of us call scientists and engineers, who made Tesla and SpaceX, not Musk. It was not scientists and engineers who scoffed at the ideas of Tesla and SpaceX, but businessmen and other non-creators. The ideas that Musk is promulgating through Neuralink are decades old; the technology he is using is hardly anything special. What scientists are pushing back on is the unrealistic timeframe Musk promises to achieve his scifi fantasies within, the consequences and repercussions of those technologies, and the short term effects of overselling and propaganda about these ideas, which are otherwise in fact valuable.
  - disabled 5y ago
    Thank you for this thoughtful post. You hit the mark on the situation at hand.
  - gmadsen 5y ago
    hardly anything special? have you seen the new press release? the prototype has an order of magnitude better resolution of brain signals. It is special if it was stopped right now and just given to neuroscience departments at universities.
  - deepnotderp 5y ago
    > It was the experts that you disdain with quotation marks, but the rest of us call scientists and engineers, who made Tesla and SpaceX, not Musk. It was not scientists and engineers who scoffed at the ideas of Tesla and SpaceX, This is definitely some rewriting of history. Plenty of engineers gave a long list of reasons why reusable rockets couldn’t work. Difficulty of station keeping for the drone ships, cost of refurbishment, safety margins, etc
- mempko 5y ago
  He didn't start Tesla. And you can thank NASA for funding SpaceX. In both cases you can thank generous government subsidies for keeping his businesses afloat until they started making money. Let's also thank the thousands of engineers who made both Tesla and SpaceX work. We need to stop giving one guy all the credit.
justanotherhn 5y ago
To which claims are you referring to?
adelarsq 5y ago
Impossible for now
nscalf 5y ago
I'm so sick of this overly negative and defeatist way of thinking. You don't have to go back in time all that far to have people from that time think most things in our day to day life would be impossible to make. Maybe you don't realize this, but Elon knows he isn't setting easy goals. He knows they'll miss sometimes, but having a deadline and all eyes on you helps progress. But yeah sure, let's just keep selling ads back and forth forever and push down anyone who tries to do anything good for society. Great input.
- disabled 5y ago
  Dude, I am an electrical engineering graduate student, who is proficient in controls, among other things. I also am very aware of what is technologically possible, versus what is a marketing gimmick. Musk has been in trouble several times with the NTSB, which is not an honorable thing to be on your record. It is unsafe to drive any self-driving car without full human attention. This is going to be this way for quite awhile. It was irresponsible of Musk not to integrate technologies to ensure that the human at the wheel was paying attention to the road (eye gaze analysis, posture, facial emotions, hands on the wheel detection, etc.) for every single second that the driver was operating the car, with a mode such as autopilot.
  - jp42 5y ago
    It's already there. no seat belts, hand not on wheel, etc the car slows down and parks on the side of the road. I suggest you research and verify yourself.
    - xedeon 5y ago
      It's discouraging that so many users here are absolutist now. There use to be insightful conversations. Now it seemed to have devolved to nothing but dunking and negative (typically wrong) attitudes. Just like this comment claiming that they're an EE student. Yet, everything they claimed can be easily disproved. Objective thinking be damned... It reminds me of the CoinBase and Dropbox replies: https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/1382724197458214917 https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/13827241974582149... https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/1382727544223371267 https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/13827275442233712...

mpfundstein 5y ago

'may never' and here u got it.

johncoogan 5y ago

By "never be technically possible" do you mean: Not possible in the usual 10 year timeframe we consider for Silicon Valley type companies. Or Never in a million years, completely violates the laws of physics.

xedeon 5y ago

> Musk is making claims that are not technically possible Which ones specifically?

seriousquestion 5y ago

If he had listened to the "experts", there would be no Tesla and no SpaceX.

Tallasatree 5y ago
Love it (no sarcasm)
abxytg 5y ago
If he had listened to experts, Tesla's little driver assist would not be called 'autopilot' and ending in 4 hour long lithium fueled human barbecues.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  Less people have died from Autopilot than eating lettuce contaminated with E. coli over a decade. Everyone still eats lettuce. Stupid people doing stupid things on Autopilot (watching a film [Florida], jumping in the back seat [Texas]) would’ve died doing stupid things eventually. Can’t blame Autopilot for when the monkey tries to defeat the safety system. No system is foolproof. That doesn’t make Musk any less of a liar (with his successes amplifying the hopium), but let’s not pretend people aren’t culpable for their failings. The nuance is important.
  - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
    I don't think "Well you know, these people are idiots and they'd have killed themselves anyway" is going to win any hearts and minds. Or persuade a jury, if it ever comes to that. No system is foolproof. But systems that encourage or tolerate foolish and dangerous behaviour can't be considered well-designed.
  - Arainach 5y ago
    You can blame the system when it misleads its users. To this day, the Model S configurator calls the system "Autopilot" and uses "Full Self-Driving Capability", "Navigate on Autopilot", and "Full Self-Driving Computer" as bullet points of things it can currently do. https://i.imgur.com/3cQRMwZ.png https://i.imgur.com/3cQRMwZ.png https://www.tesla.com/models/design#overview https://www.tesla.com/models/design#overview The fine print isn't a justification when you're saying as loud as possible that this is a magic machine that does everything. Describing it as such is misleading. For comparison, here is how Cadillac describes Super Cruise, a comparably-rated driver assist suite: "Super Cruise" drive assistance feature. That's it. That's all you get when picking out the car. It frames it as an assistance, not a replacement or autopilot. If you go into details, you get "A driver assistance feature that allows hands-free driving under compatible highway driving conditions" https://www.cadillac.com/sedans/ct5/build-and-price/packages https://www.cadillac.com/sedans/ct5/build-and-price/packages If you search out their detailed marketing materials, the message is consistent: "Hands off the wheel. Eyes on the road." "Adaptive cruise control". "Stay centered". "Lane change on demand". Note that none of these promise that the computer takes over everything. The closest they come is "the first true hands-free driving-assistance", and that word assistance is absolutely key in framing this as not a replacement for all driving. https://www.cadillac.com/world-of-cadillac/innovation/super-cruise https://www.cadillac.com/world-of-cadillac/innovation/super-...
toiletfuneral 5y ago
genuinely curious, what experts said you couldn't build electric cars or reusable rockets? are you taking about investors?
vaer-k 5y ago
It was the experts that you disdain with quotation marks, but the rest of us call scientists and engineers, who made Tesla and SpaceX, not Musk. It was not scientists and engineers who scoffed at the ideas of Tesla and SpaceX, but businessmen and other non-creators. The ideas that Musk is promulgating through Neuralink are decades old; the technology he is using is hardly anything special. What scientists are pushing back on is the unrealistic timeframe Musk promises to achieve his scifi fantasies within, the consequences and repercussions of those technologies, and the short term effects of overselling and propaganda about these ideas, which are otherwise in fact valuable.
- disabled 5y ago
  Thank you for this thoughtful post. You hit the mark on the situation at hand.
- gmadsen 5y ago
  hardly anything special? have you seen the new press release? the prototype has an order of magnitude better resolution of brain signals. It is special if it was stopped right now and just given to neuroscience departments at universities.
- deepnotderp 5y ago
  > It was the experts that you disdain with quotation marks, but the rest of us call scientists and engineers, who made Tesla and SpaceX, not Musk. It was not scientists and engineers who scoffed at the ideas of Tesla and SpaceX, This is definitely some rewriting of history. Plenty of engineers gave a long list of reasons why reusable rockets couldn’t work. Difficulty of station keeping for the drone ships, cost of refurbishment, safety margins, etc
mempko 5y ago
He didn't start Tesla. And you can thank NASA for funding SpaceX. In both cases you can thank generous government subsidies for keeping his businesses afloat until they started making money. Let's also thank the thousands of engineers who made both Tesla and SpaceX work. We need to stop giving one guy all the credit.

justanotherhn 5y ago

To which claims are you referring to?

adelarsq 5y ago

Impossible for now

nscalf 5y ago

I'm so sick of this overly negative and defeatist way of thinking. You don't have to go back in time all that far to have people from that time think most things in our day to day life would be impossible to make. Maybe you don't realize this, but Elon knows he isn't setting easy goals. He knows they'll miss sometimes, but having a deadline and all eyes on you helps progress. But yeah sure, let's just keep selling ads back and forth forever and push down anyone who tries to do anything good for society. Great input.

disabled 5y ago
Dude, I am an electrical engineering graduate student, who is proficient in controls, among other things. I also am very aware of what is technologically possible, versus what is a marketing gimmick. Musk has been in trouble several times with the NTSB, which is not an honorable thing to be on your record. It is unsafe to drive any self-driving car without full human attention. This is going to be this way for quite awhile. It was irresponsible of Musk not to integrate technologies to ensure that the human at the wheel was paying attention to the road (eye gaze analysis, posture, facial emotions, hands on the wheel detection, etc.) for every single second that the driver was operating the car, with a mode such as autopilot.
- jp42 5y ago
  It's already there. no seat belts, hand not on wheel, etc the car slows down and parks on the side of the road. I suggest you research and verify yourself.
  - xedeon 5y ago
    It's discouraging that so many users here are absolutist now. There use to be insightful conversations. Now it seemed to have devolved to nothing but dunking and negative (typically wrong) attitudes. Just like this comment claiming that they're an EE student. Yet, everything they claimed can be easily disproved. Objective thinking be damned... It reminds me of the CoinBase and Dropbox replies: https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/1382724197458214917 https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/13827241974582149... https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/1382727544223371267 https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/13827275442233712...