4 ms·

I can forgive a lot of grandiosity as long as he keeps delivering more than his competitors. Steve Jobs was also known for his “reality distortion field”, so m

by rlt 4y ago

I can forgive a lot of grandiosity as long as he keeps delivering more than his competitors. Steve Jobs was also known for his “reality distortion field”, so maybe it comes with the territory. That said, FSD progress seems asymptotic and the Optimus thing always seemed like bullshit.

moralestapia 4y ago
Yes, but Steve Jobs delivered. He was rude and whatnot, but far from a fraud.
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  And Jobs' "reality distortion field" was primarily used to motivate / burn-out his team by demanding things that were technically very difficult but feasible (one of the original anecdotes was about reducing the boot-time for the original Macintosh), not something like solving AGI which FSD would ~apparently require.
  - 01100011 4y ago
    I fully believe Elon and Jim Keller truly thought the deep learning HW delivered by Tesla was capable of self-driving in the early 201x time frame because, frankly, a lot of us did. More than likely, like the rest of us, they slowly came to see that the problem was much more difficult, and deep learning much less capable, than we had originally envisioned. Most of us didn't make a bunch of stupid promises to shareholders based on the original, incorrect assumptions though. Unlike Elon, we're able to admit we were wrong.
    - kaba0 4y ago
      Betting on vision-only self-driving was still a very bad bet, not only in hindsight. The competition all added additional sensors.
    - mrmlz 4y ago
      As someone who has worked for almost a decade with safety critical software, system design and functional safety analyses (both aerospace and automotive) etc. I don't think I ever met anyone who believed they would be anywhere near FSD/Level-5 what-have-you in the timeframe they presented. The only ones I met who thought so was managers and software developers and ML-people, i.e. people who has never in their life seen the level of effort it actually takes to get something qualified for RTCA or other safety standards.
      - 01100011 4y ago
        > As someone who has worked for almost a decade with safety critical software, system design and functional safety analyses And you were right, but most people aren't like you, and people like you don't drive the discussion on what trends are coming. The world needs more folks with your background. Generally no one wants to listen to folks like you because you come off as a Debbie Downer despite being correct most of the time.
        mrmlz 4y ago
        Hah, to be fair I am somewhat of a Negative Nancy from time to time ;) I think Mercedes has a reasonably sensible game-plan as far as I know. They currently have Level-3 on some highways in Germany which is still freaking hard to achieve, but still a narrow enough scope that you might be able to pull it off. Time will tell, my bet is its still 10+ years off.
    - bsaul 4y ago
      ML approach for FSD was critized right from the start by mobileeye CEO who gave a very thorough talk on why that couldn't possibly work. I think the talk is still on youtube. The guy was critized for being old school and not having adapted to the latest tech (including by elon musk when he dumped mobileeye), but in fact he was just plain right. i think the tech community owes him an apology.
      - jimmydorry 4y ago
        Until any FSD solution delivers, it's far too early to vindicate the mobileye CEO. As it stands, even with additional (expensive) sensors, it seems very likely that ML will be required regardless. Running purely off sensors is not going to be feasible when braking distances alone are greater than the sensors will be able to accurately measure.
        bsaul 4y ago
        He did give a second talk a few years later explaining how the purely cognitive aspect may be handled by ML, and the total system probably going to end up being a mix. But his fundamental opposition to ML for things related to safety was, IMHO absolutely correct.
- rlt 4y ago
  You don’t think SpaceX and Tesla have delivered quite a lot? FSD is really the only big project I can think of this far behind, and maybe Cybertruck. I don’t think it’s fair to ignore all his other accomplishments.
  - 93po 4y ago
    HN safely ignores anything positive about Elon because they prefer to think the richest man on the planet is both an idiot and also a failure in everything he does
  - barrysteve 4y ago
    Solar rooftops hasn't gone anywhere. Boring company and Hyperloop didn't go anywhere. Let's face it Neuralink isn't going anywhere too. Tesla wasn't started by Musk and relies heavily on Panasonic battery developments and SpaceX and Starlink is good old fashioned ex-NASA and MIT talent. What does Musk actually do? Annoy the SEC, go on Joe Rogan to smoke weed and have more girlfriends per hour than Gengis Khan?
    - rlt 4y ago
      Ok troll.
      - barrysteve 4y ago
        If you had a point you wouldn't be so flippant.
        rlt 4y ago
        I made my point. Pointing to additional examples of grandiosity (some might call ambition) doesn't invalidate it. Neither do attacks on his character or lame arguments like "Tesla wasn't started by Musk" ignoring that he grew the company from 4 people to 100,000 people. Or that somehow recruiting large amounts of NASA and MIT talent is a bad thing? That's good leadership. Seriously? Either you're trolling or you have some irrational hatred of the guy.

by rlt 4y ago

moralestapia 4y ago

Yes, but Steve Jobs delivered. He was rude and whatnot, but far from a fraud.

mikeyouse 4y ago
And Jobs' "reality distortion field" was primarily used to motivate / burn-out his team by demanding things that were technically very difficult but feasible (one of the original anecdotes was about reducing the boot-time for the original Macintosh), not something like solving AGI which FSD would ~apparently require.
- 01100011 4y ago
  I fully believe Elon and Jim Keller truly thought the deep learning HW delivered by Tesla was capable of self-driving in the early 201x time frame because, frankly, a lot of us did. More than likely, like the rest of us, they slowly came to see that the problem was much more difficult, and deep learning much less capable, than we had originally envisioned. Most of us didn't make a bunch of stupid promises to shareholders based on the original, incorrect assumptions though. Unlike Elon, we're able to admit we were wrong.
  - kaba0 4y ago
    Betting on vision-only self-driving was still a very bad bet, not only in hindsight. The competition all added additional sensors.
  - mrmlz 4y ago
    As someone who has worked for almost a decade with safety critical software, system design and functional safety analyses (both aerospace and automotive) etc. I don't think I ever met anyone who believed they would be anywhere near FSD/Level-5 what-have-you in the timeframe they presented. The only ones I met who thought so was managers and software developers and ML-people, i.e. people who has never in their life seen the level of effort it actually takes to get something qualified for RTCA or other safety standards.
    - 01100011 4y ago
      > As someone who has worked for almost a decade with safety critical software, system design and functional safety analyses And you were right, but most people aren't like you, and people like you don't drive the discussion on what trends are coming. The world needs more folks with your background. Generally no one wants to listen to folks like you because you come off as a Debbie Downer despite being correct most of the time.
      - mrmlz 4y ago
        Hah, to be fair I am somewhat of a Negative Nancy from time to time ;) I think Mercedes has a reasonably sensible game-plan as far as I know. They currently have Level-3 on some highways in Germany which is still freaking hard to achieve, but still a narrow enough scope that you might be able to pull it off. Time will tell, my bet is its still 10+ years off.
  - bsaul 4y ago
    ML approach for FSD was critized right from the start by mobileeye CEO who gave a very thorough talk on why that couldn't possibly work. I think the talk is still on youtube. The guy was critized for being old school and not having adapted to the latest tech (including by elon musk when he dumped mobileeye), but in fact he was just plain right. i think the tech community owes him an apology.
    - jimmydorry 4y ago
      Until any FSD solution delivers, it's far too early to vindicate the mobileye CEO. As it stands, even with additional (expensive) sensors, it seems very likely that ML will be required regardless. Running purely off sensors is not going to be feasible when braking distances alone are greater than the sensors will be able to accurately measure.
      - bsaul 4y ago
        He did give a second talk a few years later explaining how the purely cognitive aspect may be handled by ML, and the total system probably going to end up being a mix. But his fundamental opposition to ML for things related to safety was, IMHO absolutely correct.
rlt 4y ago
You don’t think SpaceX and Tesla have delivered quite a lot? FSD is really the only big project I can think of this far behind, and maybe Cybertruck. I don’t think it’s fair to ignore all his other accomplishments.
- 93po 4y ago
  HN safely ignores anything positive about Elon because they prefer to think the richest man on the planet is both an idiot and also a failure in everything he does
- barrysteve 4y ago
  Solar rooftops hasn't gone anywhere. Boring company and Hyperloop didn't go anywhere. Let's face it Neuralink isn't going anywhere too. Tesla wasn't started by Musk and relies heavily on Panasonic battery developments and SpaceX and Starlink is good old fashioned ex-NASA and MIT talent. What does Musk actually do? Annoy the SEC, go on Joe Rogan to smoke weed and have more girlfriends per hour than Gengis Khan?
  - rlt 4y ago
    Ok troll.
    - barrysteve 4y ago
      If you had a point you wouldn't be so flippant.
      - rlt 4y ago
        I made my point. Pointing to additional examples of grandiosity (some might call ambition) doesn't invalidate it. Neither do attacks on his character or lame arguments like "Tesla wasn't started by Musk" ignoring that he grew the company from 4 people to 100,000 people. Or that somehow recruiting large amounts of NASA and MIT talent is a bad thing? That's good leadership. Seriously? Either you're trolling or you have some irrational hatred of the guy.