Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'TSLA Investor Discussions' started by AudubonB, Dec 28, 2018.
Just for fun I bought a few long call spreads for July 315-365 for $6.75.
Alright, Market Makers sold enough puts, time to launch
Nice theory, and if it were true you'd be right... but it's false
Your basic point as applied to FSD is what Karpathy addressed in a video linked a bit ago. According to him, the programmers are the data labelers. Yeah, in some pedantic sense you are right, but in a practical sense humans are still doing the programming. If you alter the labeling (code) then the results of the neural net training (compiler) are different.
umm... topicality? erm... Tesla's quest for FSD and their process for doing it which appears to be different (more reliant on neural nets than others) which will be in the forefront in about 90 minutes.
Another video taken of the clip has emerged. Now I'm not sure again.
Wow, people disagreeing to a possibility? I like the ideas myself.
I think we will be surprized today. I already posted my predictions in detail, so we'll circle back later today on that...
Yes, that would do it. Rigging a propane tank to catch fire isn't that hard and the camera angle is certainly set to hide any explosives or flammables which were placed under the car.
A heads-up to cheer you up:
If any company competently can determine what's what with smoke patterns, spread, timing and so forth, it would be a company that has unparalleled expertise in the forensics of rocket RUDs. Does anyone know of any such?
Or realize people don't either and that some situation require not following the normal rules of the road. (two lane roundabout that is only one lane due to construction)
My concern with using 'experts' to train driving is that the cars are driving with 'non experts'.
marquis of queensbury rules vs street brawler.
1. Don't hit anything
2. Obey laws
3. Head toward your destination
(with 2 and 3 intermingled)
That is really speculation, right ? You are basically assuming worst. Nothing I've seen in AP makes me feel it is being trained by bad drivers (rather than problems with recognizing objects).
I mean, sometimes I may drive badly (usually when distracted) - but can definitely figure out what is good and what is bad driving. We should expect that even average drivers can pick out what is good driving and use that for training the network - because it is easy to recognize and throw away obvious bad driving.
I think the video is real thing. Other thing if it was sabotaged or just battery failed, investigation will tell.
Well, I'm not entirely sure that's true. In addition to being aware of a situation, you also have to have the skill/expertise to then deal with it.
Example: there are lot of drivers aware they are in a skid, but don't have the expertise to counteract it.
@verygreen can probably verify, but I don’t believe the network is currently doing any controlling of the car. It’s just detecting and classifying objects and lane lines.
Ah, but that is stability control, and they do have experts on vehicle dynamics code that part.
Regarding Tesla designing their corporate structure such that service is not a profit center. This draws a striking contrast to the current dealership system of traditional manufacturers where service is a large profit contributor. Dealers don't do it this way because they are stupid. The dealer system works but perversely IMO.
But delivering great service can be handicapped if there is no incentive for profit. Profit sharing helps a bit but really portions of a service delivery enterprise work best if on the profit line where incentives are ever present and growth is self-funded. Leaving service on the expense line makes it ripe for budget cuts at the worst possible times (in my experience).
One possible solution:
Tesla provides a product with a warranty. Tesla can do direct warranty service for which they fund internally.
Tesla could defer from doing out of warranty service but establish certified providers that are geographically diverse. Local service enterprises can fill in with certified parts profitably supplied by Tesla as well as Tesla certified training. This would be a small business at first but grow over time. (This is close to what the rangers seem to be filling in for as the company grows)
Tesla could warrant certain SW for life so they remain fully involved with all things SW related.
As a manager spending a few decades in “service”, I will say that the most efficient way to deliver poor service is to take it off the profit line.
This is controversial particularly with sales and marketing and sometimes engineering but my personal experience supports it. Nothing wrong with making a profit for doing an outstanding job for customers (this requires independent verification).
Profit is a tool that delivers many subtle benefits if managed wisely. Structurally, service has to be organized so that baseline profit flows from an incentive for reliability (what the customer really wants) and not from unreliability. Just my thoughts....
Good argument, I guess. The counter-argument is that until you have someone who knows what good driving looks like (hint: it doesn't look like the average car on the Interstate), you're not going to know what problems you need to solve. When you finally get the people in to work out how to make the car drive *well*, you may discover you have to totally redo your vision stack, because a really good driver is looking for something you weren't looking for.
There are a lot of situations where the correct path to follow is *not obvious* to an average driver. Particularly when it's a question of whether to exit the pavement and go onto the shoulder, whether to go into the opposite lane, whether to exit the shoulder onto dirt, etc. This is HARD and most people get it wrong most of the time. Even me.
In some cases, it's literally "make a K turn and go to a totally different route".
If they have a few driving experts -- say three, with different backgrounds -- and they show each tough situation to them and go "OK, what should the car do here?", and go with the consensus (and also ask them what cues they're looking at, particularly if they disagree) -- then they'll be doing a good job at training.
That I agree on. Also, LIDAR is a total dead end.
From an investing point of view this is probably another example of "you don't have to run faster than the bear". If everyone fails, but Tesla is the best in the bunch, they probably still make a mint.
If Tesla has to restart their NN path choice training mostly from scratch, but everyone else doesn't even have the right hardware, Tesla definitely makes a mint.
This is exactly where AI driving excels. People who don't regularly practice what happens in various emergency situations are ill equipped to deal with them when they happen. Now AI can't do everything in its current state, barring miracles from this afternoon's presentation, but it can react to skids and similar occurrences in the correct manner. The next step is for it to be able to handle rain, then snow and ice.
Evercore was Tesla's Investment Bank adviser in the SolarCity acquisition (SCTY used Lazard).
Why the heck would this video look so different than the last?
I think the benefit of AI is in preventing emergencies to begin with. Most accidents are caused by driver's being drunk, tired, distracted, driving aggressively etc. If we resolve that then true emergencies will be super rare.
Just eliminating all driving under the influence (drugs and alcohol) would halve the amount of major accidents.
I have an issue with that. I've seen several really good service people at dealers let go because they only wrote up what the customer needed without any extras.