Big brother Tesla

[stowie]

I watched the RoboTaxi launch and it seemed a slightly lacklustre and confused event, especially by Musk. I wasn't the only one who thought it was slightly odd - Marques Brownlee youtube video also commented on it

Tesla is priced in as a disruptive technology company rather than a car company - their market cap cannot be sustained within the standard auto market size. Hence the autonomous futuristic robotaxi or the large transit vehicle (or bus as it is often known as!). Or the weird humanoid robots whose interaction with attendees seemed a little too human...

Musk needs the market to believe they are a cutting edge AI company rather than a car company with some good (or great) AI stuff. They need to continue to believe that Tesla will upend the car market again in the way they did with electrification. The fact that a company - any company - managing to disrupt their core market more than once is hugely rare seems unimportant. Most companies don't disrupt their markets once, less still turn it on its head twice. If one looks at the figures with Tesla from an auto standpoint, Tesla is massively overvalued. Looking at it from the AI market makes Tesla look undervalued if anything (it will really hurt the economy when/if that AI bubble bursts).

Tesla are almost a victim of their own success, or at least Musk's ability to promote his companies. They build good cars, they have technology which is either leading edge or amongst the best depending on the car segment. If they were viewed as a car company and priced as such they would be able to continue to build on this as well as working on perceived weaknesses such as build quality. Instead they get diverted by Robotaxis and Cybertrucks, the latter doing nothing to dispel the build quality question that Tesla has had to struggle with for years.

Don't get me wrong. I like Tesla cars. I may even get one quite soon, and I am sure I will be impressed by much of it. But the auto industry has put fullly autonomous driving on the back burner for long term goals and concentrated on range, styling and ADAS for their vehicles in the short term. I don't think Tesla have this luxury and it could become very painful if investors start to think of the company as a good car company rather than a disruptive technology company.

 

[albion]

Musk is really headlining his other aveñue positives so that the very large negative sales hit on his car dales can be ignored.

It seems his robots were all controlled via model airplane type controllers. The new hardware needed for his taxi attempt at FSD has increased the speculation of major class action for that part of his mis-selling.

 

[albion]

https://futurism.com/the-byte/elon-musk-video-optimus-robot-shirt

Reminds me of Trump. Posting stuff far too hastily.

 

[stowie]

Interesting short video concerning Tesla crashes.
Of course, human driving is capable of making the same mistakes - and worse. But the "autonomy" available in vehicles currently should never be called "autopilot" or be sold as replacing or better than humans. Instead companies need to work on making sure they are improving human drivers rather than pretending to replace them.

 

[Psamathe]

Interesting short video concerning Tesla crashes.
Of course, human driving is capable of making the same mistakes - and worse. But the "autonomy" available in vehicles currently should never be called "autopilot" or be sold as replacing or better than humans. Instead companies need to work on making sure they are improving human drivers rather than pretending to replace them.

And maybe (at least for me) the question as to "why" (and the answer "because we can" is not enough).

I can see how making long distance driving easier is a bit like building more roads and would likely result in more poeple driving longer distances more often at a time when we need to be reducing climate impacting behaviour (and even EVs take energy, cause pollution, environmental damage).

I see a benefit from autonomous vehicles in cities where the automation could help traffic flow better. But maybe as taxi based vehicles rather than everybody owning their own car spending 99% of its time parked outside a house of clogging car parks or jaming up roads as the owner drives around looking for somewhere to park.

Of all the challenges we need smart people to be finding solutions for I don't see autonomous vehicles as a high priority.

Ian

 

[C R]

Of all the challenges we need smart people to be finding solutions for I don't see autonomous vehicles as a high priority.

This reminded me of the bit in idiocracy where the scientists concentrate on finding cures for baldness and erectile disfunction.

 

[Ian H]

This reminded me of the bit in idiocracy where the scientists concentrate on finding cures for baldness and erectile disfunction.

Are the two related? My hair tends to stick up when it's cut short.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Are the two related? My hair tends to stick up when it's cut short.

Premature verticalation?

 

[stowie]

I can see how making long distance driving easier is a bit like building more roads and would likely result in more poeple driving longer distances more often at a time when we need to be reducing climate impacting behaviour (and even EVs take energy, cause pollution, environmental damage).

The tech to help people drive long distances on highly controlled roads such as motorways has been around quite a while. My 9 year old car has highly effective adaptive cruise control for example. It may be that further autonomy could take the drudgery out of motorway driving and increase safety. How much of this would need to be full autonomy or driver aids is highly questionable. Plus, as you say perhaps the push should be to long journeys on rail and making rail cheaper, more widespread and more appealing than spending huge amounts catering for autonomy in private vehicles.

I see a benefit from autonomous vehicles in cities where the automation could help traffic flow better. But maybe as taxi based vehicles rather than everybody owning their own car spending 99% of its time parked outside a house of clogging car parks or jaming up roads as the owner drives around looking for somewhere to park.

Cities are where car makers like to show the benefit of their technology but it is where it makes the least sense. Public transport can be scaled due to population density. Many journeys are very short where walking and cycling are the most efficient - both technologies that have been out for a while... No-one really asks where these "robo-taxis" will go when they have delivered their passenger and waiting for a new ride. Will they just endlessly circle? Will expensive land be devoted to storing them in city centres? It just doesn't seem to me that we are solving much aside from allowing people like musk to own our transportation. Plus cities are very complex in their road use. They really don't suit the technology. I imagine that these tech companies will lobby hard to "re-vision" our cities to suit the limitations in their technology. It isn't unreasonable to think they might be pushing for jay-walking laws, for cycling to be restricted. For our city streets to be given over to suit their needs. City streets are communal areas. Plus this ride-sharing type vision seems to forget the fact that a century of careful marketing has made people think of their cars as part of their personality and own personal fiefdom. It will be quite a social change to get people to treat cars as simply another shared mode of transport like a bus or the underground.

I think that companies like Waymo are investing in autonomy, not because it is "solving" a transport problem, but because it is a highly complex AI problem which can be bounded and managed. They want to research AI rather than get to become a taxi company. And Tesla are all in because if they don't keep that dream alive they suddenly become just another EV car company and a very over-valued one.

 

[the snail]

...

I think that companies like Waymo are investing in autonomy, not because it is "solving" a transport problem, but because it is a highly complex AI problem which can be bounded and managed. They want to research AI rather than get to become a taxi company. And Tesla are all in because if they don't keep that dream alive they suddenly become just another EV car company and a very over-valued one.

They're in it because they see big profits in robot taxi services. I can't really see how autonomous vehicles really solve any transport problems, although it should improve safety, but there is surely big money to be made.

 

[icowden]

They're in it because they see big profits in robot taxi services. I can't really see how autonomous vehicles really solve any transport problems,

You must live somewhere that has good local transport!

 

[ikdo01]

The tech to help people drive long distances on highly controlled roads such as motorways has been around quite a while. My 9 year old car has highly effective adaptive cruise control for example. It may be that further autonomy could take the drudgery out of motorway driving and increase safety. How much of this would need to be full autonomy or driver aids is highly questionable. Plus, as you say perhaps the push should be to long journeys on rail and making rail cheaper, more widespread and more appealing than spending huge amounts catering for autonomy in private vehicles.



Cities are where car makers like to show the benefit of their technology but it is where it makes the least sense. Public transport can be scaled due to population density. Many journeys are very short where walking and cycling are the most efficient - both technologies that have been out for a while... No-one really asks where these "robo-taxis" will go when they have delivered their passenger and waiting for a new ride. Will they just endlessly circle? Will expensive land be devoted to storing them in city centres? It just doesn't seem to me that we are solving much aside from allowing people like musk to own our transportation. Plus cities are very complex in their road use. They really don't suit the technology. I imagine that these tech companies will lobby hard to "re-vision" our cities to suit the limitations in their technology. It isn't unreasonable to think they might be pushing for jay-walking laws, for cycling to be restricted. For our city streets to be given over to suit their needs. City streets are communal areas. Plus this ride-sharing type vision seems to forget the fact that a century of careful marketing has made people think of their cars as part of their personality and own personal fiefdom. It will be quite a social change to get people to treat cars as simply another shared mode of transport like a bus or the underground.

I think that companies like Waymo are investing in autonomy, not because it is "solving" a transport problem, but because it is a highly complex AI problem which can be bounded and managed. They want to research AI rather than get to become a taxi company. And Tesla are all in because if they don't keep that dream alive they suddenly become just another EV car company and a very over-valued one.

Good summary here


View: https://youtu.be/040ejWnFkj0?si=C5Nx7ODWrCH2xosC

 

[Psamathe]

They're in it because they see big profits in robot taxi services. I can't really see how autonomous vehicles really solve any transport problems, although it should improve safety, but there is surely big money to be made.

My guess (based on no more than personal opinion) is that in congested cities traffic might flow more efficiently if you don't have the selfish minority trying to barge-in, jumping and having to stop mid box junction, etc.

Also I'd hope that part of the autonomous vehicle changes (primarily in cities) would be many switching from vehicle ownership to service provision (like the bikes, scooters, etc.). So somebody determined to drive to get to/from work rather than having to drive round for a bit to find a parking space then leave their vehicle taking space all day, instead that vehicle would be on the road carrying others eg shoppers, etc. around (not needing any parking spaces).

I always thought is a real shame when politics got in the way of public transport in London and Ken Livingstone introduced the single low fare on the underground (Fares Fair). Might have been deemed to be illegal (when pursued by Conservatives) but it's a law or concept that could be changed. It would have had so many benefits for London. (Plus, my impression is that the basis of the "illegality" seems ignored these days as my taxes contribute to other subsidised transport that I gain no benefit from).

Ian

 

[Rusty Nails]

My guess (based on no more than personal opinion) is that in congested cities traffic might flow more efficiently if you don't have the selfish minority trying to barge-in, jumping and having to stop mid box junction, etc.

This might work if there was 100% self-drive in cities, but that will be a very, very long time away, which none of us will live to see. In the meantime those selfish drivers will have a field day when automated cars are programmed to act safely and let them in rather than risk a bump.

The problems in cities are always going to be caused by the mix of automated and human driven cars.

 

[stowie]

This might work if there was 100% self-drive in cities, but that will be a very, very long time away, which none of us will live to see. In the meantime those selfish drivers will have a field day when automated cars are programmed to act safely and let them in rather than risk a bump.

The problems in cities are always going to be caused by the mix of automated and human driven cars.

A study quite a number of years ago looked at how pedestrians might interact with autonomous cars. They quickly worked out they would stop and so as the number of pedestrians increased then the car progress pretty much ground to a halt. Interestingly, pedestrians would let autonomous cars go more often if they had a passenger but were very happy to have an empty one sit there almost indefinitely. There was no "social contract" with the empty car that made them feel they should allow progress. It seems quite a wonderful inversion of the current situation where might is right.

What to do about this? Have autonomous cars employ a random factor where they stop for most pedestrians but the odd one or two they plow through to engender a sense of jeopardy? Doesn't sound like it would be a massively popular move? Introduce jaywalking laws? I cannot imagine anyone in London and certainly not in Paris taking the slightest notice of such a law.

And that doesn't even cover your scenario where drivers work out they can bully autonomous cars all the time. If one takes anything from human driving behaviour it should be that if you can get away with it, you probably will do it.

As the excellent video above points out, these cars are being tested in car-centric US cities with road systems designed for cars for the most part and generally benign weather conditions. Shove it in the middle of Rome or Dakar and it might be a very different matter!