5 ms·

Since they didn't disclose this, wouldn't it then be fraud? Does anyone remember when Nikola rolled their truck down a hill to make it appear to be driving? The

Since they didn't disclose this, wouldn't it then be fraud? Does anyone remember when Nikola rolled their truck down a hill to make it appear to be driving? The CEO went to prison...

fastball 2y ago
Tesla would've needed to claim that they were not being remotely operated, which AFAIK they did not do.
immibis 2y ago
That was him, this is Elon.
- guywithahat 2y ago
  To my understanding, there was a human remote assisting the robot in some demos. So some of the demos were just the AI, others like the bartender was a robot being controlled by a human. Honestly it doesn’t seem that bad to me, when I read the headline I thought it was going to be people in costumes
  - greenthrow 2y ago
    Read the article. Only the walking was AI. Everything else was human controlled, ie faked.
    - skeledrew 2y ago
      What's wrong with that? Were any explicit claims made that the bots were fully controlled by AI?
victor106 2y ago
I don’t think Elon would ever go to prison. He’s too powerful. He is Trump’s best buddy now. So he is fine.
threeseed 2y ago
It doesn't matter if it's fraud. If Trump wins, all of the investigations will simply go away. If Trump loses, then there are already a number of SEC/DOJ investigations targeting Musk over FSD claims and how X was purchased that would see him face jail time.
- griffzhowl 2y ago
  Yeah, I found it quite amazing that it wasn't disclosed that he was holding significant amounts of Twitter stock when he made an offer well-above asking price, inflating that stock price, and then tried to back out of the deal. It makes it look like a classic dogecoin pump-and-dump scheme which backfired when it became clear how completely illegal it was. I haven't followed it in detail though so am curious about other interpretations
baxtr 2y ago
So you really believe the richest man on the planet would go to jail?
- falcolas 2y ago
  Yes. Do you believe otherwise? Why should someone be exempt from following laws based on their stock value?
  - griffzhowl 2y ago
    Not from their stock value, necessarily, but based on their bribes and political connections, quite possibly
  - CatWChainsaw 2y ago
    https://www.forbes.com.au/news/billionaires/billionaires-behind-bars/ https://www.forbes.com.au/news/billionaires/billionaires-beh...
griffzhowl 2y ago
Fraud means a deception for the purpose of financial gain, so I think as long as they're not selling these while giving the impression that this is autonomous behavior, it's not fraud. In any case, from the article, "Another robot — or the human voicing it — told an attendee in a stilted impression of a synthetic voice, “Today, I am assisted by a human,” adding that it’s not fully autonomous." So it seems in fact they were fairly transparent about what was going on. The article just has a deceptive headline.
- greenthrow 2y ago
  They don't have to be selling them to gain financially off of lies. They were obviously trying to juice the stock price.
  - Gee101 2y ago
    I think historically Telsa stock always falls after their events.
  - griffzhowl 2y ago
    Maybe, as always, they were trying to juice the stock price with this promotional event, but if the robot is telling people that it's controlled by a human, where is the lie?
    - aquatica 2y ago
      Because it didn't. There's videos where people ask and the "robot" replies with "I can't disclose how much AI there is in me"
      - fastball 2y ago
        That's not a lie either?
gorpy7 2y ago
Is this comment and every comment under this comment a joke? The article clearly states that they repeatedly said they were human assisted. If there are bots misguiding us, i think i found them.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Since they didn't disclose this, wouldn't it then be fraud? Does anyone remember when Nikola rolled their truck down a hill to make it appear to be driving? The CEO went to prison...

fastball 2y ago

Tesla would've needed to claim that they were not being remotely operated, which AFAIK they did not do.

immibis 2y ago

That was him, this is Elon.

guywithahat 2y ago
To my understanding, there was a human remote assisting the robot in some demos. So some of the demos were just the AI, others like the bartender was a robot being controlled by a human. Honestly it doesn’t seem that bad to me, when I read the headline I thought it was going to be people in costumes
- greenthrow 2y ago
  Read the article. Only the walking was AI. Everything else was human controlled, ie faked.
  - skeledrew 2y ago
    What's wrong with that? Were any explicit claims made that the bots were fully controlled by AI?

victor106 2y ago

I don’t think Elon would ever go to prison. He’s too powerful. He is Trump’s best buddy now. So he is fine.

threeseed 2y ago

It doesn't matter if it's fraud. If Trump wins, all of the investigations will simply go away. If Trump loses, then there are already a number of SEC/DOJ investigations targeting Musk over FSD claims and how X was purchased that would see him face jail time.

griffzhowl 2y ago
Yeah, I found it quite amazing that it wasn't disclosed that he was holding significant amounts of Twitter stock when he made an offer well-above asking price, inflating that stock price, and then tried to back out of the deal. It makes it look like a classic dogecoin pump-and-dump scheme which backfired when it became clear how completely illegal it was. I haven't followed it in detail though so am curious about other interpretations

baxtr 2y ago

So you really believe the richest man on the planet would go to jail?

falcolas 2y ago
Yes. Do you believe otherwise? Why should someone be exempt from following laws based on their stock value?
- griffzhowl 2y ago
  Not from their stock value, necessarily, but based on their bribes and political connections, quite possibly
- CatWChainsaw 2y ago
  https://www.forbes.com.au/news/billionaires/billionaires-behind-bars/ https://www.forbes.com.au/news/billionaires/billionaires-beh...

griffzhowl 2y ago

Fraud means a deception for the purpose of financial gain, so I think as long as they're not selling these while giving the impression that this is autonomous behavior, it's not fraud. In any case, from the article, "Another robot — or the human voicing it — told an attendee in a stilted impression of a synthetic voice, “Today, I am assisted by a human,” adding that it’s not fully autonomous." So it seems in fact they were fairly transparent about what was going on. The article just has a deceptive headline.

greenthrow 2y ago
They don't have to be selling them to gain financially off of lies. They were obviously trying to juice the stock price.
- Gee101 2y ago
  I think historically Telsa stock always falls after their events.
- griffzhowl 2y ago
  Maybe, as always, they were trying to juice the stock price with this promotional event, but if the robot is telling people that it's controlled by a human, where is the lie?
  - aquatica 2y ago
    Because it didn't. There's videos where people ask and the "robot" replies with "I can't disclose how much AI there is in me"
    - fastball 2y ago
      That's not a lie either?

gorpy7 2y ago

Is this comment and every comment under this comment a joke? The article clearly states that they repeatedly said they were human assisted. If there are bots misguiding us, i think i found them.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]