8 ms·
I'm not pissed and I am a stockholder. To me it makes a lot of sense. I doubt they are reviewing the entire code base. It seems like Elon is particularly inte
by nightski 4y ago
I'm not pissed and I am a stockholder.
To me it makes a lot of sense. I doubt they are reviewing the entire code base. It seems like Elon is particularly interested in the automated systems that control content and detect bots. To that end, Tesla has a lot of expertise in AI systems.
- bloqs 4y ago
- JohnJamesRambo 4y ago
- Aeolun 4y ago
- JohnJamesRambo 4y agoTSLA is down 43% ytd, yes truly evolving before our very eyes. The DOJ criminal probe into the bogus self-driving claims three days ago bodes well also.
- giantrobot 4y agoBased on Tesla's PE the only people responsible for the increased share price of Tesla are investors gambling on hype. There's nothing about Tesla's fundamentals that justifies even their current valuation. It's all irrational exuberance of gamblers. The only thing Musk has contributed to the stock price has been hype and vapor ware.
- concordDance 4y agoAnd calling it too high.
- helf 4y ago
- jefftk 4y agoTesla and Twitter both have experience in AI in the sense that Exxon and Unilever both have experience in chemistry.
- newZWhoDis 4y ago
- ditn 4y agoThen why were they reviewing unrelated codebases? iOS, Android? This doesn't hold up
- jjfoooo6 4y agoAI as practiced in self driving cars is dramatically different than what is practiced in bot detection. Self driving has a well defined, static problem space, with inputs that don't change often (how often do they come out with a new street sign?). Twitter is combatting distributed adversaries who are constantly adjusting their approach in evading detection.
- bumby 4y agoThey are certainly different domains, but can you justify the claim "Self driving has a well defined, static problem space"? One of the things that makes safety critical applications like self driving so hard is they have such an abundance of low probability, high severity cases that it is very difficult to define/test them all.
- DFHippie 4y agoI think it's static inasmuch as it isn't an inherently adversarial problem. The world isn't bent on thwarting self-driving cars. Bot authors are bent on subverting detection.
- ceejayoz 4y ago> The world isn't bent on thwarting self-driving cars. Oh, that'll come.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- bumby 4y agoThat’s fair, but I don’t think it explains the “well defined” part of the claim. They problem is so ill defined that it sometimes has to be modeled as random events instead of a deterministic physical process.
- jjfoooo6 4y agoWhat I mean to convey by "well defined" is that even though the problem space of self driving cars is enormous, the success criteria of teaching a car to self drive is probably going to look pretty similar in 10 years to what it looks like now. Bots on the other hand changes constantly - what is the definition of an abusive bot? What is the definition of spam? The adversaries on Twitter adapt not only their tactics but also their goals.
- steveBK123 4y agoThat's absolutely insane. Tesla employees are paid by Tesla to do work for Tesla. Freelancing during the workday at Twitter, SpaceX, or any of the other company just because Musk is the owner or CEO is basically wage theft by Musk. How would you feel if he had Tesla assembly line workers renovate his house?
- noncoml 4y agoThey wouldn’t mind. The employees have expertise in renovating. So makes sense. What a weird timeline we are living in..
- morpheuskafka 4y agoIt's not about the employees liking the work or not. It's about whether or not Tesla is paying them to do work that does not benefit Tesla. This is basic, basic, basic corporate law. It's not a "weird timeline" and it is in no way specific to the tech industry. Managers, directors, CEOs, etc. cannot have the corporation do services for them for free because this deprives the non-management shareholders of value. Using their position as manager to assign employees to work on their house is in effect causing the corporation to provide them with renovation services for free. This self-dealing would be grounds for a derivative suit. Also, it only takes one shareholder (in principle) to make this an issue. Even if you and most Tesla longs think Musk earned the right to do a little self-dealing here and there, it is an open invitation for legal action by SEC and other shareholders. If you owned 100% of the company then all of that wouldn't be an issue, but it's still not something any legal department would OK. The comment above you is wrong to call it wage theft--that would refer to workers not being paid the higher of minimum or promised wage for the time worked.
- steveBK123 4y agoAgreed I muddied things with the phrase wage theft. It’s theft from shareholders.
- lupire 4y agoIt's a field trip. Is taking the team out to lunch also "stealing from shareholders"?
- spamizbad 4y agoI get the impression you aren’t a software engineer. So to clarify: AI is not generalized enough to the point where there’d be much common expertise unless, say, this code review was very narrowly focused on computer vision. And even then this article specifically talks about code review, which, unless you have the context of the Twitter codebase isn’t going to be very meaningful. You might do this if you’re buying a teeny tiny startup with no real engineering culture - not (formerly) publicly traded company. I’be been a software engineer for nearly 2 decades and have been involved in multiple technical due-diligence endeavors. At best, you’re just grokking the big-picture and looking for any major red flags. Getting involved in individual code reviews is not a useful exercise outside of understanding a team’s SDLC and various coding practices - for an org the size of Twitter all of that stuff should have been documented and shared during due diligence (which Musk waved) - injecting outside engineers into the code review process is just an expensive and sloppy way to uncover what could otherwise be gleaned in an easier fashion. I do see one big red flag for Twitter: it now has leadership that doesn’t trust the engineering organization. For a technology company that can be fatal if not resolved quickly.
- jaxn 4y agoCounter-point: Tesla is rumored to be working on a phone. That team could be very interested in Twitter for shareholder-value reasons. Do we have any reason to believe it was Tesla’s AI engineers?
- SantalBlush 4y agoI hear they're rumored to be working on a Cybertruck as well.
- shapefrog 4y agoI hear they're rumored to be working on a self driving as well.
- dmitriid 4y ago> Counter-point: Tesla is rumored to be working on a phone. How is this a counter point? How exactly doing superficial review of code they've never seen of a social network will help them with developing a phone?
- dylan604 4y agoAre these the same Tesla AI experts that can't make FSD work?
- giantrobot 4y agoMaybe they're the ones responsible for making the door handles work when the car is on fire. Or the ones that wrote the AI that runs over children or in front of trains.
- arglebargle123 4y agoThe obvious solution is to have the tesla tweet at the child to get out of the way, or at the local fire department that there's a bbq'd customer who needs assistance.
- nxm 4y agoBecause Waymo has been able to?
- warbler73 4y ago
- Eisenstein 4y agoElon bought Twitter, he didn't take Tesla private. TSLA is listed on the NASDAQ, check it if you don't believe. Please stop asserting things as true that are demonstrably wrong.
- warbler73 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- klyrs 4y agoWhy do you keep posting that? I count 3 copies of the same comment. You're confused, please re-read the thread and note the difference between TSLA and TWTR. edit: in retrospect, I see that you're a new user. FYI: I've flagged this comment, but not the original, because you're spamming. Spam isn't cool.
- warbler73 4y ago
- VintageCool 4y agoBut that's TWTR, not TSLA.
- warbler73 4y agoYes that is exactly what I said.
- 4y ago
- kmbfjr 4y agoNot all it has a stellar reputation
- mhh__ 4y agoIn vision...
- morpheuskafka 4y agoThe key is whether or not Twitter is compensating Tesla (and therefore its shareholders) at a fair market value for the time and resources used by Tesla employees for the benefit of Twitter (and therefore Musk as its owner). Not whether or not it makes sense to do so. If its a dumb idea on Twitter/Musk's part but Tesla is fully compensated for their engineers' time, all is OK. If its a great idea but Musk just assigned Tesla employees to do work that does not benefit Tesla and does benefit another company that he owns, that is an issue. The scale of this is irrelevant. Absent fair compensation to Tesla, even one employee doing a day's work for Twitter is prohibited self-dealing. No one would bother filing a derivative suit over such a small amount, but SEC penalties could absolutely apply afaik.
- ratg13 4y agoThere is no definition of "fully compensated" Even if Twitter is paying much more than their salary costs, you still need to value the damage to the business by taking the crew away from the ship. You can't just assume zero impact unless this was just a one-day workshop.
- bigmattystyles 4y agoUnless Twitter is paying the Tesla for Tesla’s employees time to Tesla, whether you care or not, doesn’t matter. A part time CEO of a public company is using the public company’s resources on one of his private project. If I owned a business with someone and found out the other owner was using our company’s funds but told our employees to go mow his house’s lawn, I would consider that misappropriation, embezzlement even. We don’t know the details here but I would hope it’s above board.
- greesil 4y agoYeah but you'd be asking for metrics, PR curves, labeled data, and things like this. Not code.
- adave 4y agoThis has a material impact just no enough for folks to understand or complain about. Can't do that with fanboys around.