Elon is Unstoppable

[josemar]

1 hour ago, integral said:

Spending 44 billion dollars to help Trump win the presidency is Free Speech! Sounds about right!

 

No, free speech is about... speech, not spending your money.

1 hour ago, integral said:

Every terrorist group should have the ability to amount the largest X follower base possible and promote their content as much as possible without any restraint cuz that's free speech!

Are these terrorists American citizens? You might be surprised to know many places in the world do not, in fact, have "free speech" as a tenet of the Constitution.

As an American terrorist, they'd have the right to promote whatever they want, but freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences of that speech. If they promote illegal acts (violence etc), the law enforcement agencies have a duty to investigate and take them down. Not because they don't have freedom of speech, but because promoting illegal activities is... illegal.

1 hour ago, integral said:

I should be able to Market my (" insert illegal scam ") as a healthy choice that doctors recommend, because free speech!

Same as above, any illegal activity should be pursued by the law enforcement agencies.

The voices that were silenced pre-Elon were engaging in debate, of science, of ethics, of identity etc, but they did not align with the doctrine from above.

[Princess Arabia]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Tesla crashes are not a big deal. All models of cars crash. Eventually Tesla autopilot will be safer than human drivers.

Well, the lawsuits are. Plenty Tesla lawsuits filed.

[integral]

1 hour ago, josemar said:

No, free speech is about... speech, not spending your money.

Are these terrorists American citizens? You might be surprised to know many places in the world do not, in fact, have "free speech" as a tenet of the Constitution.

As an American terrorist, they'd have the right to promote whatever they want, but freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences of that speech. If they promote illegal acts (violence etc), the law enforcement agencies have a duty to investigate and take them down. Not because they don't have freedom of speech, but because promoting illegal activities is... illegal.

Same as above, any illegal activity should be pursued by the law enforcement agencies.

The voices that were silenced pre-Elon were engaging in debate, of science, of ethics, of identity etc, but they did not align with the doctrine from above.

That makes sense if you could hold people accountable to what they say

[josemar]

1 hour ago, integral said:

That makes sense if you could hold people accountable to what they say

What makes sense?

Hold people accountable when they instigate illegal activities, not differences of opinion.

 In your zeal to ban "dangerous speech" like instigation to violence, scamming etc, you also ban/censor alternative opinions to the leftist accepted talking points. Many of those were accepted by one or a very small number of people and were sent down to the unwashed as diktats, and any disobedience was not tolerated and would get you cancelled, fired and censored. See how they tried to cancel JK Rowling, cancel and fire Gina Carano, Bret Weinstein, Warren Smith etc...

[integral]

18 minutes ago, josemar said:

What makes sense?

Hold people accountable when they instigate illegal activities, not differences of opinion.

 In your zeal to ban "dangerous speech" like instigation to violence, scamming etc, you also ban/censor alternative opinions to the leftist accepted talking points. Many of those were accepted by one or a very small number of people and were sent down to the unwashed as diktats, and any disobedience was not tolerated and would get you cancelled, fired and censored. See how they tried to cancel JK Rowling, cancel and fire Gina Carano, Bret Weinstein, Warren Smith etc...

I honestly don't know how effective elon's changes are. I know that the old Twitter had the sense to ban Trump. Meaning they where liberal leaning or they simply acknowledge Banning criminals. Elon's integrity and ethics seem to be questionable.

Apparently he modified the algorithm so that his posts received more attention during the election than everyone else.

[Leo Gura]

19 hours ago, Scholar said:

The problem is, who is going to be accountable for the mistakes a Telsa car makes? Who goes to prison for it? 

Cars crash. That's just baked in the cake of what cars are. Car AI will eventually save more lives than it kills so this is not a serious issue. If you don't want to take the risk then don't drive using AI. If you use auto-pilot you know the risks.

[Thought Art]

@Leo Gura So now I have to bear the risk of someone else using AI? 

[QandC]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Cars crash. That's just baked in the cake of what cars are. Car AI will eventually save more lives than it kills so this is not a serious issue. If you don't want to take the risk then don't drive using AI. If you use auto-pilot you know the risks.

I wouldn't trust an AI on the road more than a drunk person behind the wheel

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Thought Art said:

@Leo Gura So now I have to bear the risk of someone else using AI? 

You've borne the risk of people driving since day one.

Edited Friday at 04:30 PM by Leo Gura

[Thought Art]

@Leo Gura Yeah, sure. Drivers make mistakes all the time. But, your AI could kill me. 
 

Just interesting at least…

[integral]

1 hour ago, Thought Art said:

@Leo Gura Yeah, sure. Drivers make mistakes all the time. But, your AI could kill me. 
 

Just interesting at least…

Aren't humans just AI?

Oh wait that's NI, natural intelligence.

I'm sure there's a market for that. 

Edited Friday at 06:04 PM by integral

[Thought Art]

@integral Humans are conscious and intelligent. AI is a model which can become highly accurate and intelligent. Definitely an interesting area of inquiry. 
 

I am not sure I understand your comment about a market for that. 
 

I meant to say before to Leo to add in that it’s not just the Tesla driving risk their life but the lives of others when using the AI. Just as a nuance to his earlier point. 
 

There is always risk when driving of course. 
 

I do suspect that in time AI will be far superior to human drivers. It’s hard to say if in our lifetime AI self driving cars will be the norm. It’s unlikely when considering systems thinking and the infrastructure that already exists. Chances are dumb, gas guzzling cars are here to stay for a long time. 

Edited Friday at 06:43 PM by Thought Art

[PenguinPablo]

On 12/12/2024 at 7:15 AM, Princess Arabia said:

Lots of Tesla law suits, deaths, and crashes.

Why were they going 100mph??

is that really the car's fault...

[Princess Arabia]

1 hour ago, PenguinPablo said:

Why were they going 100mph??

is that really the car's fault...

Crashes are there, but I think the lawsuits have to do with malfunctioning. I have to look up the details. I saw the headlines.

Edit: I just briefly checked and one lawsuit has to do with problematic autopilot feature which resulted in one person's death. Now there are reports checking into the safety of this feature. I only checked briefly and have no more info on that. You're probably right about the regular crashes. Provably speeding, plus cars crash everyday. 

Edited Friday at 08:26 PM by Princess Arabia

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Thought Art said:

@Leo Gura Yeah, sure. Drivers make mistakes all the time. But, your AI could kill me.

At least AI doesn't drink and doesn't text.

[OBEler]

What do you think about Optimus?/ Fake it till you make it?

[Davino]

I wanted AI to explain the following metaphor:

Quote

In the early 20th century, elevators had human operators to manage the controls and reassure frightened passengers. At first, people didn’t trust stepping into a machine that moved between dozens of floors without a human guiding it. They relied on the operator’s skill and presence.

As technology improved, automatic elevators emerged, but the public remained wary. It took time, proof of reliability, and familiarity for people to accept entering an empty cab and pressing a button. Today, we think nothing of it.

Self-driving cars face a similar hurdle. Initially, the public fears relinquishing control to software and sensors. But as systems prove their safety and become commonplace, trust will grow. Just as elevator operators disappeared once their role became unnecessary, human drivers may do the same. Eventually, stepping into an autonomous car could feel as normal as riding an operator-free elevator.

Cool recontextualization right?

[Miguel1]

14 hours ago, Thought Art said:

@Leo Gura Yeah, sure. Drivers make mistakes all the time. But, your AI could kill me. 
 

Just interesting at least…

I dont get it,

And human drivers cant kill you?

[Leo Gura]

11 hours ago, OBEler said:

What do you think about Optimus?/ Fake it till you make it?

The hardware is very impressive. But the software to actually make is useful and autonomous is probably 10+ years away. I am very skeptical they will be able to program it easily. It's gonna be as hard as FSD. My guess is it will be able to do cool demos in artificial environments but it won't be useful in real-world applications because there are too many edge-cases.

It will not able to do even basic tasks like taking out the trash or washing dishes.

A home-bot is very far away. Maybe they can make them useful for repetitive factory work.

Edited Saturday at 08:36 AM by Leo Gura

[Davino]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It will not able to do even basic tasks like taking out the trash or washing dishes.

I find it interesting to note how basic tasks for humans are super hard for machines and the other way around, hard tasks for humans are peanuts for machines. This is actually called Moravec’s Paradox.

Quote

The Counterintuitive Journey of AI: Why "Easy" Is Hard and "Hard" Is Easy

The early pioneers of AI in the 1950s assumed machines could easily handle what humans do unconsciously—like recognizing objects or picking them up. Instead, they found these “easy” tasks to be incredibly difficult. Meanwhile, the “hard” stuff, like solving puzzles or playing chess, turned out to be much simpler for machines but was only discovered decades after.

Why "Easy" Is Hard

Tasks like object recognition or grasping objects require sensory understanding and context—things the human brain evolved to handle effortlessly. AI, however, struggled to interpret messy, real-world data. A toddler could recognize a face or pick up a ball, but early AI couldn’t replicate such basic skills.

Why "Hard" Is Easy

In contrast, structured tasks like chess or logic puzzles involve clear rules and finite possibilities. These were perfect for early computers, which excel at following algorithms. By 1997, IBM’s Deep Blue defeated Garry Kasparov in chess, proving AI could outthink humans in logic-driven domains, even if it couldn’t recognize a cat in a photo.

Moravec’s Paradox

"What is easy for humans is hard for AI, and what is hard for humans is easy for AI." Tasks humans do unconsciously—like walking, recognizing faces, or picking up objects—are incredibly difficult for AI. These rely on sensorimotor skills, which evolved over millions of years and require processing vast amounts of complex, real-world data in real-time.

In contrast, tasks like solving math problems, playing chess, or logical reasoning, which seem harder to humans, are easier for AI. These involve rule-based systems and structured logic that can be easily translated into algorithms and computations.

The paradox shows the unique challenges AI faces in replicating certain human facets, particularly intuition, context, emotions, originality, ambiguity, humour and physicality to mention some. While at the same time excelling in processing large knowledge fields, recognizing patterns, performing repetitive tasks, multitasking and maintaining precision and consistency without fatigue.