Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Regarding AI-day: In The Netherlands at the Supercharger in Eemnes there is a restaurant.
People can take a short break while charging for a cup of coffee, a meal, etc.
Nothing out of the ordinary, but...

This week I entered the restaurant and saw robots moving deliveries out of the kitchen towards the tables.
First time I saw it there, amazing to see them moving in public space.
The robots were careful to not bump into anyone, clearly scanning their surroundings.
Personnel only needed to take the order and later put the prepared dishes on the table in the restaurant.
Forgot to take a picture, but these were the robots I saw. Amazing sight.

It has made me all the more curious about AI-day. This evolution is moving fast, people.

Screenshot 2022-09-30 at 07.01.53.png
 
'Twas the night before AI day, and all through the house, not an option was trading, not even by mouse
Deep learning was hung by the demos with care, while we hoped for marvels Elon soon would lay bare.

Spoiler alert: A contrarian take on Optimus. For economic, rather than technical reasons.


Elon's answer to your question "What am I missing?" was that the human-designed world is designed for humans. A human-shaped general purpose robot could be economical by being versatile. One robot could do many different jobs.

But of course you are correct that specialized robots can be economical too. I suspect robots will eventually come in a range of humanness. For example, a package-delivery robot probably needs legs to climb stairs, but the rest of its body could be very different from a human body.

The development process has to start somewhere, and the human shape seems a good foundation for later variations. Also, perhaps sadly, some robots will do jobs that require them to look very much like (sexy) humans.
 
'Twas the night before AI day, and all through the house, not an option was trading, not even by mouse
Deep learning was hung by the demos with care, while we hoped for marvels Elon soon would lay bare.

Spoiler alert: A contrarian take on Optimus. For economic, rather than technical reasons.

I think it’s pretty obvious why the automation process, which has been going on for hundreds, if not thousands of years, doesn’t proceed by the one-for-one replacement of people with simulacra.
The reason this trend is about to be disrupted is that until very recently in the grand scheme of things, our technological capabilities have been insufficient in AI, actuators, cameras and batteries to make a truly useful human simulacrum. Tesla asserts that they have the necessary capabilities in all these areas to make the first successful humanoid robot design. Hopefully we will find out tomorrow how true this is.
Our cars are kind of semi-sentient robots on wheels, and...it kind of makes sense to put that [vision perception stack] onto a humanoid form....It's intended to be friendly, of course, and navigate through a world built for humans... - Elon at AI Day 2021

The reason to make the bot in humanoid form is the generic capabilities and backward compatibility mainly. Instead of being able to do a single task optimally, like a combine harvester, a humanoid bot could perform a wide variety of tasks suboptimally. If there's a lot of wheat to be harvested in a field, then use the combine instead of a bunch of bots with scythes. If there's a few tomatoes to harvest from the garden, spaghetti sauce to prepare, noodles to boil, counters to wipe, floors to sweep, and dirty dishes to load into the dishwasher, then having specialized machines for each of these would be extremely inefficient compared to having one robot that can do all of these tasks, albeit in a less-than-ideal fashion. A humanoid form with advanced AI can, in principle, be a one-for-one substitution for a wide variety of tasks.

Advantages of AGI in humanoid form:
  • Geometrically fits in all spaces designed for a human to fit
  • Can move around on pathways and stairs humans can navigate due to similar shape and bipedal leg-based design
  • Hands with fingers and thumbs allow for incredibly diverse possible object manipulation action space, allowing bot to potentially perform thousands of different little tasks in a day that each require different movements just as a human can
  • Hands and average human-level strength allow use of existing hand tools like drills, wrenches and nailguns, as well as a gigantic variety of other objects designed to be manipulated by hands, such as doorknobs, cooking utensils, handles, pill bottles, buttons, control knobs, shoelaces, and so on
  • Torso core design allows for cavity to place batteries, inference computer and other innards, and centralizes mass to minimize rotational inertia while also minimizing the amount of mass moving back and forth during walking
  • Two legs is the minimum number of limbs physically required to balance and walk smoothly on a variety of surfaces; three or more legs would be redundant hardware as long as the control software is good enough to dynamically keep the robot balanced
  • Two arms is the minimum number of free limbs physically required to establish a stable grip on large objects and to counteract the torque produced by the legs while walking in order to maintain balance; three or more arms would be redundant most of the time
  • Anthropomorphic form is more friendly and familiar so people will like and trust the AI more, but not so close to the Uncanny Valley that it spooks people, and this helps with integration of bots into human society
1664512756127.png

(Source)

Which is why I am so puzzled with Musk’s passion for the Optimus project. I would suggest that Optimus itself could benefit from the kind of “first principles” thinking for which Elon is justly famous, rather than “reasoning by [anthropomorphic] analogy.
One first principle reason why an anthropomorphic form is probably the optimal architecture for a general-purpose robot is that the biological evolutionary process resulted in many different species with intelligence, but resulted in only a single genus, Homo, with advanced general intelligence and abstract logical reasoning abilities. It's also suspicious that all of.the rest of our simian cousins (chimps, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans, etc.) are unusually smart compared to the rest of the Animal Kingdom. Why did all these semi-bipedal apes with opposable thumbs get so smart instead of birds, or snakes, fish, tigers, sharks, wolves, dinosaurs, or any of the other species in the mind-boggling biodiversity produced by this planet over the eons? The general trend since life began has been gradually increasing complexity and intelligence adaptations, so why did the development of intelligence go so much faster and further with our species and our ape cousins? And why does the anthropological record show that once early Homo ancestors developed a bit of unusual intelligence, there was seemingly a runaway snowball effect where past that tipping point intelligence rapidly developed en route to the advent of Homo sapiens?

In biology most of the time, form follows function such that a species' anatomy indicates a lot about the species' behavior. Even if you had never seen a bird before, you might be able to deduce from looking at its body that the creature is one that flies. The peculiarity of our intelligence amongst all the living things on Earth suggests that intelligence may be maximally useful in the human physical form. Maybe this was purely random coincidence, but that seems unlikely because intelligence costs extra in energy and nutrient demands of the brain, so it has to present a reproduction advantage greater than these costs. In the case of our ancestors, it was worth it. The intelligence enabled us to team up in sophisticated ways, develop tools, trick animals, build better shelters, make clothes to stay warm without our own fur, fend off even the most fearsome of predators, and take down huge animals like the wooly mammoth. Many of these uses of general intelligence required hands and upright posture.

Designs inspired by biology often aren't optimal because the evolutionary algorithm can get stuck in local maxima. This is why no animals have wheels, despite the clear advantages for speed and energy efficiency. A frail, obese, 65-year-old human driving a Model S Plaid can leave any cheetah in the dust in a race. However, in many cases the design yielded by biology is pretty close to optimal and I think it's clear why the smartest species on the planet is shaped as we are. Our form is basically the bare minimum fewest-parts design for generic object manipulation and mobility. For instance, nothing has demonstrated better general grip capabilities than human hands. In rare cases some humans have less or more than five digits per hand, yet this never caught on as the genetically most common type of hand, suggesting that four fingers and a thumb is optimal. Might as well make a robot with hands that are at least attempting to mimic this.
 
Last edited:
Paul Graham co founded Y-Combinator, the best startup incubator of all time, and their biggest success in their portfolio is AirBnB. I am glad to see AirBnB co-founder Joe Gebbia is joining the board because Paul Graham has spoke very highly of how AirBnB has been run from the beginning and also of the founders themselves. Additionally, I think that the culture Gebbia helped instill at AirBnB meshes well with the culture of the Musk companies.

The Scientific Method for using rigorous empiricism to understand reality was described by Sir Francis Bacon four centuries ago and unfortunately it still today is not widely used by the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time. Investors can gain an advantage by overcoming their biases with science in order to gain a more accurate understanding of the world and thereby make better forecasts and consequently better investing decisions. The best way to test the truth of any hypothesis is randomized controlled trials with careful data collection and rigorous analysis of the data.

Y-Combinator is effectively a research lab that has spent more than a decade running experiments in a quest to determine what factors influence the probability of startup success. Paul Graham has spent years on the ground working with startups and their users and has also collected a lot of data from thousands of startups that have gone through Y-Combinator as well as data of the applicants whom they rejected and their subsequent performance without Y-Combinator’s help. Therefore Paul Graham's opinion on this subject is of great value if we want to predict the success likelihood of a given startup such as Tesla. Y-Combinator has batches of startups that go through the same selection process and work together helping each other out, with the same funding connections to venture capital, and they all work at the coworking space in Silicon Valley. This is the closest thing we’ll probably ever get to randomized controlled trials with large sample sizes and long follow-up periods for 21st-century technology startup entrepreneurship.

If you haven’t read any of Paul Graham’s essays, I highly recommend doing it (link) These writings factored heavily in my decision to back up the truck on TSLA with half my savings in 2018. Graham has described his observations on the distinguishing factors that separate mega-successful startups from the rest, and I saw that Tesla operated like those previous dominant startups and that Elon Musk thought and acted like the ideal founder.

Here are some of his gems with obvious parallels to Tesla as well as the surrounding FUD and general public misunderstanding:







The AirBnB founders were hardcore from day one because they had just quit their jobs to start a business together and their landlord increased rent by 20%, so they came up with the idea of renting out their air mattresses and living rooms to people traveling to San Francisco for a big design conference that month. Their initial funding came from selling Obama- and McCain-themed breakfast cereal and credit card debt until Y-Combinator invested and took them under their wing. This is the same kind of move as sleeping on the couch in the small office for Zip2 and showering at the gym, isn’t it? Or sleeping at the factory and setting up the Fremont tent? Or like selling flamethrowers, surfboards, short shorts, and tequila in lightning bolt-shaped bottles? You pivot decisively into whatever it takes to win (ethically of course) and have fun without taking yourself too seriously.

View attachment 858265

I anticipate that Gebbia will support Tesla’s breakneck speed of innovation and he personally knows what it’s like to have most people saying your ideas are stupid and will never work. Most people, including venture capitalists whose main job is supposed to be recognizing good founders and product-market fit, thought AirBnB was a dud concept destined to fail, and that nobody would want to pay to stay at a stranger’s home they found on the internet when they could stay at a real hotel. They did it anyway and apparently risked personal bankruptcy to do so, just like Elon did in 2008 right along with them. This mindset really fits Tesla well. Only time will tell, but I’m optimistic about this addition to Tesla’s board.
I literally founded a company that went through Y-Combinator. Think you’re putting in too much into this dude lol. YC companies have a huge diversify of teams, industries, and approaches. There’s no magical YC dna that all teams operate with. If anything YC is a fairly hands-off accelerator as they don’t even give us co working space. It’s a sink or swim mentality and we’re all self-motivated by demo day.


When I read stuff like this it makes me wonder if I was an insider how I would chuckle at speculation of what’s going on vs what’s really going on. Like being a doctor and having friends think your life is like Greys anatomy.

For the record my cofounders know Gebbia and he’s a good dude. With that said, Brian is the heart and soul of that company’s culture.
 
For the record my cofounders know Gebbia and he’s a good dude. With that said, Brian is the heart and soul of that company’s culture.
Tesla neither wants nor needs Airbnb's "culture". What they need is somebody with a good understanding of what works and doesn't work with the customers of that sort of business.
 
Interesting this ranking was given from a division of Standard and Poors, hope they talk to the financial ratings branch 😂
 
Whoa. Freaky. Not a ha-ha post IMHO. Not going to amuse institutional investors, for sure.


An easy mistake to make, but let’s all be very clear: this is not a Tesla account: look in the account information at the “location“ that says “Parody”.

No need to pay any attention to this account but it may be useful to reply to the tweets making sure others also realise it is someone’s joke account.
 
Airbnb had lots of fake accounts when it started.
Airbnb seems to have fake users, folks who question or probe hosts without any intent of staying.
Airbnb repeatedly suggests lower prices to increase bookings. They have never suggested raising prices, even when local hotels are so full they charge 10x.
Unlike TSLA, Airbnb IPO seemed to be a cashing out event. TSLA actually used money to grow the business.
I've never seen an Airbnb listing from the founders renting out extra space...
Airbnb limits visibility of some listings in a manner that is difficult to understand. We are the only listing in my local town, but when searching the area using the town name our listing does not even show on the first page of offerings.

I do not know of a better board appointment, but I am neutral on this one.
 
I think there are some unreasonable expectations about Optimus but I keep seeing it echoed that tesla is only 1 year into it.

I could be wrong but I doubt when they announced their intentions to make Optimus that they hadn’t already committed quite a bit of time to it covertly.

When they announced teslas would be fully self driving someday circa 2016 they didn’t have it solved, but they had engineered the cars to all have cameras and laid out a great deal of their groundwork.

Elon didn’t wake up, say “let’s build a robot” and then immediately hold a public event to find people interested in working on the robot team.

I think most people realize this but it bears repeating, software and hardware don’t start the minute your rank and file engineer opens a CAD file or writes the first line of code. A lot of important work is done before then. The same way a skyscraper doesn’t get started when you put in the foundation.

A ton of geological surveying and other high level planning goes into stuff to make sure there’s a point to starting the project.

With AI related stuff that is cutting edge there is a little more “figure it out as we go” than normal but I’m pretty confident that A LOT more planning went into the slide on that specs sheet than “ya that sounds good”
Today is the day. Do they show a robot that disappoints, meets, or exceeds the expectations of the masses?
 
Regarding AI-day: In The Netherlands at the Supercharger in Eemnes there is a restaurant.
People can take a short break while charging for a cup of coffee, a meal, etc.
Nothing out of the ordinary, but...

This week I entered the restaurant and saw robots moving deliveries out of the kitchen towards the tables.
First time I saw it there, amazing to see them moving in public space.
The robots were careful to not bump into anyone, clearly scanning their surroundings.
Personnel only needed to take the order and later put the prepared dishes on the table in the restaurant.
Forgot to take a picture, but these were the robots I saw. Amazing sight.

It has made me all the more curious about AI-day. This evolution is moving fast, people.

View attachment 858400
There is a Sushi restaurant right near us that uses these. Items that come out of the kitchen, like salads, soup, appetizers, etc. are delivered to tables using these. Sushi from the Sushi bar are delivered by wait staff.

Meijer uses these to handle checking inventory.
1664536646256.png
 
The reason this trend is about to be disrupted is that until very recently in the grand scheme of things, our technological capabilities have been insufficient in AI, actuators, cameras and batteries to make a truly useful human simulacrum. Tesla asserts that they have the necessary capabilities in all these areas to make the first successful humanoid robot design. Hopefully we will find out tomorrow how true this is.


The reason to make the bot in humanoid form is the generic capabilities and backward compatibility mainly. Instead of being able to do a single task optimally, like a combine harvester, a humanoid bot could perform a wide variety of tasks suboptimally. If there's a lot of wheat to be harvested in a field, then use the combine instead of a bunch of bots with scythes. If there's a few tomatoes to harvest from the garden, spaghetti sauce to prepare, noodles to boil, counters to wipe, floors to sweep, and dirty dishes to load into the dishwasher, then having specialized machines for each of these would be extremely inefficient compared to having one robot that can do all of these tasks, albeit in a less-than-ideal fashion. A humanoid form with advanced AI can, in principle, be a one-for-one substitution for a wide variety of tasks.

Advantages of AGI in humanoid form:
  • Geometrically fits in all spaces designed for a human to fit
  • Can move around on pathways and stairs humans can navigate due to similar shape and bipedal leg-based design
  • Hands with fingers and thumbs allow for incredibly diverse possible object manipulation action space, allowing bot to potentially perform thousands of different little tasks in a day that each require different movements just as a human can
  • Hands and average human-level strength allow use of existing hand tools like drills, wrenches and nailguns, as well as a gigantic variety of other objects designed to be manipulated by hands, such as doorknobs, cooking utensils, handles, pill bottles, buttons, control knobs, shoelaces, and so on
  • Torso core design allows for cavity to place batteries, inference computer and other innards, and centralizes mass to minimize rotational inertia while also minimizing the amount of mass moving back and forth during walking
  • Two legs is the minimum number of limbs physically required to balance and walk smoothly on a variety of surfaces; three or more legs would be redundant hardware as long as the control software is good enough to dynamically keep the robot balanced
  • Two arms is the minimum number of free limbs physically required to establish a stable grip on large objects and to counteract the torque produced by the legs while walking in order to maintain balance; three or more arms would be redundant most of the time
  • Anthropomorphic form is more friendly and familiar so people will like and trust the AI more, but not so close to the Uncanny Valley that it spooks people, and this helps with integration of bots into human society
View attachment 858398
(Source)


One first principle reason why an anthropomorphic form is probably the optimal architecture for a general-purpose robot is that the biological evolutionary process resulted in many different species with intelligence, but resulted in only a single genus, Homo, with advanced general intelligence and abstract logical reasoning abilities. It's also suspicious that all of.the rest of our simian cousins (chimps, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans, etc.) are unusually smart compared to the rest of the Animal Kingdom. Why did all these semi-bipedal apes with opposable thumbs get so smart instead of birds, or snakes, fish, tigers, sharks, wolves, dinosaurs, or any of the other species in the mind-boggling biodiversity produced by this planet over the eons? The general trend since life began has been gradually increasing complexity and intelligence adaptations, so why did the development of intelligence go so much faster and further with our species and our ape cousins? And why does the anthropological record show that once early Homo ancestors developed a bit of unusual intelligence, there was seemingly a runaway snowball effect where past that tipping point intelligence rapidly developed en route to the advent of Homo sapiens?

In biology most of the time, form follows function such that a species' anatomy indicates a lot about the species' behavior. Even if you had never seen a bird before, you might be able to deduce from looking at its body that the creature is one that flies. The peculiarity of our intelligence amongst all the living things on Earth suggests that intelligence may be maximally useful in the human physical form. Maybe this was purely random coincidence, but that seems unlikely because intelligence costs extra in energy and nutrient demands of the brain, so it has to present a reproduction advantage greater than these costs. In the case of our ancestors, it was worth it. The intelligence enabled us to team up in sophisticated ways, develop tools, trick animals, build better shelters, make clothes to stay warm without our own fur, fend off even the most fearsome of predators, and take down huge animals like the wooly mammoth. Many of these uses of general intelligence required hands and upright posture.

Designs inspired by biology often aren't optimal because the evolutionary algorithm can get stuck in local maxima. This is why no animals have wheels, despite the clear advantages for speed and energy efficiency. A frail, obese, 65-year-old human driving a Model S Plaid can leave any cheetah in the dust in a race. However, in many cases the design yielded by biology is pretty close to optimal and I think it's clear why the smartest species on the planet is shaped as we are. Our form is basically the bare minimum fewest-parts design for generic object manipulation and mobility. For instance, nothing has demonstrated better general grip capabilities than human hands. In rare cases some humans have less or more than five digits per hand, yet this never caught on as the genetically most common type of hand, suggesting that four fingers and a thumb is optimal. Might as well make a robot with hands that are at least attempting to mimic this.
You could've just said all this by saying "biomimicry" and list examples of current tech using biomimicry.

(Edit)
I should get the list started.

Cicadas coming out the ground once every 17 years is like humans going to Mars every 2 years?
 
  • Like
Reactions: petit_bateau