I would like to know two things:

1. Why don't they show a driver entering or exiting? 2. How much do that particular "car" weigh?

They imply a heavy weight with the suction downforce numbers but I think those numbers are not real. I’m reminded of neural link where the pig food detector was unimpressive, then shortly later a monkey demo was very impressive, they have since had human trials and humans don’t appear to get anywhere close to that same level.

They said there was no real driver in it for safety reasons

Well, that's a bit of a downer then isn't it? Not safe enough for them but safe enough for you to put a downpayment on...

No, it’s invitation only, i don’t think they intend to sell it. It’s probably also for weight reduction to not use a real driver. I guess it’s stripped down to the minimum, because why would you put a 300 mile battery in a car that isn’t even road legal? The main purpose is marketing and they are masters in that

> .... into a high performance car

If that is what they have done. That may just be a large drone looking like a car.

If they could have they would have shown it.

I honestly think it’s not finished yet (that’s why no production till 28 and Elon obviously being not confident the demo would work)

They also wouldn’t have wanted it on test tracks before today.

You can tell a lot about what you don't see... For instance, a driver getting in - or out.

If that thing would have looked like a huge drone (which I strongly suspect it is) no one would be up in arms about it.

Two people did get out of the one that drove up on stage. They made it very clear there was no human in the one that flew.

The one on stage was likely very different from the one that "flew".

I don't think so, most non car people don't understand 1/4 mile times.

And they already did that with a cybertruck pulling a 911, already done.

I don't think many associate intellectual capability with evil. What many do, however, is associate serious risk with living alongside vastly more intelligent entities. Especially if those entities are not aligned with us.

> associate serious risk with living alongside vastly more intelligent entities. Especially if those entities are not aligned with us.

Those are the exact reasons that caused Americans to choose the dumbest person available to lead them. They feared having smart leaders because they might have been misaligned.

And non-democratic.

Intellectual property works differently.

I agree with you, but there is one aspect that is different here - the scale that is way beyond what any human can do.

I don't know what to think about that though.

Fair point. Think of it this way: the scale is more than any human, but it is probably akin to what humanity in general can do.

You might argue that since those LLMs build on all of humanity's knowledge, they should belong to everyone. But where do you draw the lines? Or make a practical case.

They kind of do belong to everyone. The technology and majority of training corpus is available to essentially everyone.

The training and inference infra are owned and operated, but I can't see an argument that any machine that processes public domain (or stolen, if you prefer) info should be available to everyone for free.

But those training and inference costs will go to zero. Think about your cell phone today versus $1m+ supercomputers in the 1980's.

We're living in a transitory blip where capitalists and gold rushers are getting rich arbitraging the cost of processing against the non-cost of corpus. We can argue about morals (it doesn't bother me much) but it is a narrow window and it will be remembered the way Compuserve is: a precursor to the actual revolution, worth a footnote.

Sure, that's what I mean by where to draw the line. An artist taking inspiration from others is not obliged to give up the work to the public.

Sidenote: It may be tricky/impossible in the future to uphold intellectual property laws. If anyone is able (for instance) to prompt-create all their software, a software patent is worthless.

Yes. And even if (when) AI surpasses humanity in general I don't know if that changes the argument.

Yes, it's truly scary. It's not hard to imagine a small doomsday cult releasing 100+ nasty viruses at selected spots around the globe.

I'm also baffled. AI that is substantially smarter than us is a very potential threat to us - and we won't even be able to comprehend what most of those threats may be.

It's head-in-sand denial because actually facing the threat (and our total inability to stop it, imo) is terrifying, and people don't like feeling that. So they're just angry and cynical instead. Plus it makes them feel smarter for whatever reason.

Can you explain the equivalence you are suggesting?

I don’t think it’s comparable at all. Both are head in the sand?

I am very product focused with my projects. I have Claude write 100% of the code but I challenge its suggestions and make damn sure there are ways for it to verify functionality and correctness. I don't read much of the generated code but am adamant that there are tests: unit, integration and (if possible) against other implementations. And I care a LOT about performance.

So far (last 6-7 months) I've built tons of stuff in my spare time: A pdf generator lib, a scheme implementation (R5RS and R7RS) with AOT compilation, a screenplay editor, a code editor, a ripgrep-like lib/engine/cli tool for fast search in a workspace, a markdown parser, a Fountain (screenplay) parser, a lib for dealing with updating apps, tooling for finding duplicate code and generating codemaps - and much more.

It's been an absolute ride.