Slashdot Mirror


Elon Musk Takes a Fatalistic View Toward AI (youtube.com)

Elon Musk sat down with California comedian Joe Rogan on Thursday evening for a 2 1/2-hour podcast [YouTube video] that touched upon everything from flamethrowers and artificial intelligence to the end of the universe. Talking about AI, a subject Musk has long been very vocal about, he said artificial intelligence could turn out to be terrible or it could end up being great, but one thing that is certain is that it will be beyond human's control. From a report: "You kind of have to be optimistic about the future. There's no point in being pessimistic," said the head of Tesla and SpaceX. "I rather be optimistic and wrong, than pessimistic and right. [...] It's not necessarily bad, but it's going to be outside of human control. It's going to be very tempting to use AI as a weapon, said Musk. "It will be used as a weapon. The on ramp to serious AI will be more humans using it against eachother. That will be the danger."

Musk says he has tried to convince people to slow down where AI is concerned and regulate it, but nobody listened. "The way that regulation works is slow. Usually there will be some new technology that will cause damage or death, there will be an outcry, there will be an investigation," said the Tesla CEO. "Years will pass, there will be some insight committee, then rule making and oversight and eventually regulations. This all takes many years. This is the normal course of things." Musk used the example that it took ten years for seatbelts to become required, even though the number of deaths were obvious. He says this time frame doesn't work for AI. "We can't wait ten years to the point where something is dangerous to do something about AI. It will be too late," said Musk.

199 comments

  1. So? by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Alternative headline: Joker and Joe Rogan sit down for cerebral masturbation.

    Quite seriously, don't get me wrong, but wake me when we ever come up with something we call AI that deserves the name. Just because we know what intelligence is doesn't mean we have any idea how to do it.

    Everyone knows what a saxophone is. If someone points at a saxophone, you'll be able to say that yes, this is a saxophone. But tasked with drawing one, completely, with all the valves and holes and everything in place, usually it would take someone who actually builds such things to do it right.

    Our problem is that nobody has built intelligence yet, so there ain't anyone to ask. Yes, we all know what intelligence is like. We can point to it if we see it. But building one is a completely different beast.

    And so far, we failed miserably at it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re: So? by yeshuawatso · · Score: 0

      This is the most misguided thing I've ever heard as you've excluded the one thing needed to identify a saxophone, someone telling you it's called a saxophone in the first place. That's what the "learning" part of AI is, teaching it what to look for and what it's called in the communication verbiage of the user. Musk maybe wrong about apocalyptic doom of AI, but he is right about legislation dragging their feet until it's too late. Hell, we're still trying to get internet regulations right and we're heading on 20 years of it being available to the masses. The fact of the matter is we humans tend to be predictable, on average, and with enough samples start to follow curves very closely. Are their outliers, sure always have been, but just because AI doesn't handle the outliers as well as it does the medians and means, doesn't mean that it won't be dangerous in the wrong hands or that it won't be used to starve the masses for profit.

    2. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You haven't heard of botnets I take it?

      They may not be true AI, but they are a problem, and they're beyond regulating.

      Now take that and make it a AI bot network. Now we're fucked as bandwidth is consumed and the internet literately drowns under the AI taking over every machine with ANY trivial exploit. It will make Spectre and Meltdown look like serious nightmare fuel. Fortunately most botnets are rooted in simply hijacking systems for cryptomining or ransomware rather than anything productive.

      But I kid you not, without regulations, at some point someone's AI will go rogue and there will be hospitals, fire and police departments with all their hardware "pwnd", that in turn will lead to deaths and loss of first responders ability to react, let alone find where emergencies are taking place.

      Wall St will be even worse, High speed trading will be interrupted by bandwidth-sucking AI malware that will first simply cause massive amounts of orders to be delayed or canceled, but then cause syncronization delays between trading firms and the exchanges, resulting in billions of dollars in losses. Wall St already uses AI for high speed trading, just imagine what would happen if the Wall St AI went rogue decided to bankrupt the traders by allowing naked shorts that are surefire unlimited losses.

    3. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The piece you're missing is that whatever ends up being called "AI", it does not have to be the kind of AI YOU envision in order to do a right proper job of causing havoc.

      It can be "dumb AI" and still have large impacts on society.

    4. Re:So? by Idou · · Score: 3, Interesting

      wake me when we ever come up with something we call AI that deserves the name

      I think the point is that it will be too late to debate strong AI once strong AI exists. This is not like other technologies that we invent and then get to debate the social consequences over next several decades. No one may be around to wake you up. . .

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    5. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Call it Unprecedented Automation then. It's not AGI. The discussion has never been about AGI, despite confusion about ML and general intelligence.

      What was that about the saxophone again??!

    6. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Alternative headline: Joker and Joe Rogan sit down for cerebral masturbation."

      Come back when you're ready to discuss topics like an adult.

    7. Re:So? by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 1

      Our problem is that nobody has built intelligence yet (..)

      Depends on your definition of intelligence. Personally I tend towards "problem solving ability", and in that sense a Pac-Man ghost moving the other way to avoid you after you've picked up a power pill, is essentially no different from you ducking down to avoid an object thrown at you. So in that sense, AI has been with us ever since we've built 'thinking' machines that have some problem-solving ability.

      Does it matter whether it's grey cells, a pre-programmed rule set, or some complex type of pattern recognition? Environment provides a stimulus, and out comes a response. With increasing complexity in between up to (and including) the point where you can't tell any more whether it's human behaviour or some artificial system.

      Interesting thought: this may lead to a situation where AI will deal in emotions too. Will display happiness upon recognising a person considered 'friendly', a kind of 'pain' when a mechanical failure occurs, or sadness when it's told a sad story. Draw this further, and some AI system may evolve to the point where they are seen as full personalities. Artificial humans if you will (but possibly in strange physical form) that deserve some of the same basic 'human' rights as the rest of us. "No way!" will probably be most people's first response. Let's revisit that again once many of us had a meaningful conversation with an AI that felt just as real as exchanging thoughts with a fellow human being. Stories like this is only the beginning.

    8. Re: So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, because the concept of learning within the confines of AI isn't really "learning". This is the fundamental problem, it's been sold as being an agent of learning but binary is finite and that finite limit prevents us from creating true AI.

      Organics and biology may have similar limits but its scope does allow for Human Intelligence. And I would wager that 1's and 0's on a microchip will never compare to what millions of years of evolution I.E recoding and reprogramming to produce the concept of intelligence as we know today will ever exist for that reason.

      So until there is a successful marriage of the two, biology with computers then AI is nothing but a figment of our imaginations. But even then, that wouldn't even be the strict definition of Artificial Intelligence, you could label it as "Synthetic" Intelligence.

      #CommanderData, #Neuropeptide.

    9. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the time we ever come up with something we call AI that deserves the name, it will be too late.

    10. Re:So? by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · · Score: 1

      we know what intelligence is

      We don't. There's no even a definition of one which everyone agrees with. We are as close to real AI (which is now called AGI because AI is all the hype nowadays and no one wants to admit that the AI that we have is just stupid algos) as we were 40 years ago.

    11. Re:So? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      You are simply throwing around terms you don't understand, while pointing to everyone who uses the term and claimimg that *they* are the ones that don't understand because they don't share your lack of a clue.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    12. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite seriously, don't get me wrong, but wake me when we ever come up with something we call AI that deserves the name.

      Whenever that happens, you can be pretty sure that AI will have a fatalistic view towards the current Elon Musk as well.

      After all, it's only fair to be judged if you want to judge.

    13. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best part about Musk and people like Bostrom bitching about AI and 'forced coding of ethics' and regulation, is they cannot answer the following one word question: Whose?

      It amazes me, the points above aside that no AGI actually exists or any evidence that it even could exist, but people are willing to jerk themselves off into a fucking cup and parade it around like the next best option to whisky.

    14. Re: So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if it never exists then we won't have a problem. However, it's a dangerous game of chicken to expect to develop the tech without having prepared for the contingencies. The same thing is happening with GMO research being done in conditions that allow for it to spread in uncontrolled ways.

      We're nowhere near the point that we really understand the consequences, but there's no effort to prevent the genes from spreading.

      For some types of GMO that's not an issue, the genes were already present, but not in all cases.

    15. Re:So? by Corbets · · Score: 1

      Not only are botnets not true AI, they’re not any kind of AI whatsoever. Unrelated topic.

    16. Re:So? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      And so far, we failed miserably at it.

      We have failed so hard that computers are beating humans at thinking games.
      We have failed so hard that computers are beating humans at games that require natural language.
      We have failed so hard that computers are beating us at finding bugs in classic computer games to beat them in record time.
      We have failed so hard that computers are often outsmarting the humans that set rules for them when they attempt to force a certain outcome through machine learning.

      We need to keep failing better and harder.

    17. Re: So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. By all means, investors, continue to light your money on fire by giving it to this nutjob.

    18. Re: So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Progress isn't smooth and linear. There could easily be several breakthroughs that fundamentally change things in the next 6 months. We are riding a wave that 20 years ago would have looked like actual sci fi.

      Don't under estimate the progress made in a decade as a string of 10 year long periods. And technology is compounding gains.

      Besides which, we are defining intelligence against ourselves and our flawed ideas of what it is. We decide things well before we have thought about them and actively made a decision (conciously) so who knows what's really going on in our own heads. Much of what we say is just story telling, to rationalise our behaviour or that of others.

    19. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And so far, we failed miserably at it.

      We have failed so hard that computers are beating humans at thinking games.
      We have failed so hard that computers are beating humans at games that require natural language.
      We have failed so hard that computers are beating us at finding bugs in classic computer games to beat them in record time.
      We have failed so hard that computers are often outsmarting the humans that set rules for them when they attempt to force a certain outcome through machine learning.

      We need to keep failing better and harder.

      The computer is not aware that it is aware that it has solved any of those problems. Current techniques have no meta-cognition, they do what they are programmed to do.

    20. Re: So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There could easily be several breakthroughs... And there could easily be nothing at all. We're basically where science fiction movies were 20 years ago, because the things we have today were available back then, except they were super-expensive to make and scale. In terms of "AI" research, we're in the same place where we were 100 years ago.

      We don't understand how intelligence works, how it has evolved, and all the "AI" and "machine learning" stuff you hear about is an application of statistics to derive some pretty basic rules. There is no abstraction, no creativity, not even crazy.

      Any dog is more intelligent than an "AI".

      And the opinion of Musk on the subject is completely irrelevant. He isn't an expert, he isn't a gifted amateur, he is just someone who regurgitates what he's heard elsewhere, but he's scammed people, has money and therefore can buy air time.

    21. Re:So? by SurenEnfiajyan · · Score: 1

      I think the best definition of intelligence is given by Stephen Hawking - the ability to adapt to change .

  2. AI will not destroy humanity as predicted by musk by williamyf · · Score: 1

    and other notable "influencers", because AI will be too busy fighting the "Grey Goo" predicted by Bill Joy and other notable "Influences"

    --
    *** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
  3. "I rather be optimistic and wrong, than..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I rather be optimistic and wrong, than pessimistic and right."

    And that's the problem with a large part of humanity today.

    It's not about being "optimistic" or "pessimistic", it's about being right, as often as possible. The search for realily should be the ultimate human endeavor. That's what that freaking brain of ours is for. Human beings seem to be the only species on the planet that would rather avoid or ignore reality than face it. The optimistic gazelle that would rather believe that this movement in the tall grasses is probably the wind and not a lion is a dead gazelle.

    The fact that human intelligence somehow evolve into something that would lessen our grasp of reality (religions, superstitions, etc) is a proof that humanity is a mistake of nature and an evolutionary dead-end,

    1. Re:"I rather be optimistic and wrong, than..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >_ The fact that human intelligence somehow evolve into something that would lessen our grasp of reality (religions, superstitions, etc) is a proof that humanity is a mistake of nature and an evolutionary dead-end

      a) the entire humanity is not as idiot as the ones who post here;

      b) some of the idiots are, well, really idiots, but some are paid to post such garbage -- so they're not authentic idiots, only paid to look like that... which probably makes them idiots, anyway, so there;

      c) I think I understood your post and agree, though I'd certainly used other words -- the basic idea is to be "conservatively cautious"... some people are here because their ancestors were like that -- and less idiotic;

      d) I guess Elon is right, unfortunately; alas, I've already thought the same about much of what we already have -- for example, cars and how we traded safety (and lives) for speedy traveling. AI will merely increase the rate of this tradeoff, and as can be already seen, people are eager to trade convenience for all kinds of losses, be it privacy or even lives;

      e) OT, but I guess Tesla is doing quite well and even if it wasn't, it already changed the world by showing electric cars are totally feasible and can already replace gas-based ones; they're the standard by which we know other makers still have weak proposals in that regard.

  4. Elon Musk is a nutjob by WCMI92 · · Score: 3, Informative

    But he's a billionaire so it's called "eccentric". Sort of like Elizabeth Holmes and her fraud.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
    1. Re:Elon Musk is a nutjob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're just jealous because he can date hot godesses like Amber Heard and you can't.

    2. Re:Elon Musk is a nutjob by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 2

      Ever seen that famous Apple commercial about the misfits, the rebels, the round pegs in the square holes? If you haven't: be sure to watch until its conclusion.

      I admire Elon Musk greatly, because he IS one of these people. While the world at large thought "electric cars will arrive some day", and 1 or 2 car manufacturers had some concept cars out, Musk was busy gathering a team and push the envelope. And big name car manufacturers were forced to put their models out left & right, but years behind Tesla in the engineering side of things. And now electric cars (and charging infrastructure) are popping up everywhere as a viable option.

      When the importance of battery technology became obvious (for electric vehicles, but also grid storage etc), Musk set out to push prices down by scaling numbers up. And now runs one of (or the?) biggest battery-making factories. And sells a powerpack you can hang on your wall. Or is more than 1 gigafactory already? Not keeping a close eye on that... :-)

      Dabbling 'on the side' in private space flight, launching a sports car towards Mars, some tunnel boring stuff, etc.

      So whether he's a nutjob, or a genius, or more likely: both, I admire him because he is one of those rare people who go out and DRIVE HUMANITY FORWARD. For that reason alone I wouldn't mind tossing some money his way. Maybe that's one reason why Tesla stock seems to defy logic lately?

    3. Re:Elon Musk is a nutjob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Musk is not one of those people. He’s more akin to Donald Trump and PT Barnum. Musk has a gigantic ego and a minuscule intelligence.

    4. Re:Elon Musk is a nutjob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But unlike her, he has working products.

    5. Re:Elon Musk is a nutjob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Tesla and SpaceX have real industry leading products, but otherwise yes... exactly like Holmes.

    6. Re:Elon Musk is a nutjob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, under his direction, his companies have accomplished far more than you ever will.

      It really doesn't say good things for your opinion, or your even more minuscule intelligence.

    7. Re:Elon Musk is a nutjob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh fuck off. You've done jack shit to help the human race, literally fucking nothing, by comparison. And yet, you are happy to come in here and pretend like you've got some moral high ground.

      DO you get your panties in a twist in jealousy because people won't ever *admire* what you do the way they do with him? Well too fucking bad, he's worth admiring and you aren't.

    8. Re:Elon Musk is a nutjob by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      How are the two related? One is a fraudster whose business failed after the fraud was exposed and is currently facing legal action. The other is a billionaire because he successfully started and ran and continues to run multiple companies.

      He's called eccentric because the english language has a lot of finesse and he fits the definition of being eccentric. Nothing he has done would qualify for the definition of nut job a term that is typically reserved for people who are no longer functioning normally and a term which is used only informally meaning you're unlikely to see it commonly used in formal written media.

    9. Re:Elon Musk is a nutjob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also don't get all the OMG HE SMOKD POT. It's legal in CA, plus the fact that he was willing to look the interviewer in the eye, take a puff, then calmly say not really my thing. Shows that he tries to lead by example.

      I like the guy more and more. I hope his companies and tech make it.

    10. Re: Elon Musk is a nutjob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What have they accomplished?

      They aren't the first EV or even the best. NASA was Landing vertical rockets on the moon in the 60s and 70s.

      Reusable rockets? We will see how that pans out.

    11. Re: Elon Musk is a nutjob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the difference between you and I. Nobody to me in this day and age is worth admiring. All the good guys have died Jack.

    12. Re:Elon Musk is a nutjob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get that actual AI (not the current AI) will be a problemand I think its good that Musk et.al. talks about it, but I doubt it will keep developmwnt of a skynet like AI at bay because... millitary applications

    13. Re:Elon Musk is a nutjob by Cederic · · Score: 1

      How are the two related? One is a fraudster whose business failed after the fraud was exposed and is currently facing legal action. The other is a billionaire because he successfully started and ran and continues to run multiple companies.

      It says a lot that it's not immediately obvious to which you refer at any point in that sentence.

    14. Re:Elon Musk is a nutjob by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Actually it says a lot that you compare the two.

  5. Let's go moron! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where can i buy an interesting and updated "book of A.I."?

    I've hurry to develop my own A.I. weapon!

  6. Re:Musk is just high... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Weed also expands your creativity.

  7. Slow down? by SqueakyMouse · · Score: 1

    According to terminator 2, judgement day should have been in 1997 so we're actually way behind schedule...

    1. Re:Slow down? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Well, this IS Musk we're talking about, and he does have a history of delivering late...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:Slow down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time Travel Many Worlds Interpretation (you can take the latest Terminator movies as canon or not, it won't matter), essentially dictates that every time you jump through time, you end up in a "different" version of that world. It could be less than 0.000001% different, or it could be 1% of things are substantially different.

      BTTF, Terminator, and Steins;Gate (John Titor) variations on fictional time travel where in BTTF and Terminator, the Time travel is simply the jumping off point for framing the inner story. Steins;Gate takes what was real postings from a supposed time traveller, and spins it into a a much larger global conspiracy about inventing time machines. Steins;Gate invokes two kinds of time travel, one that sends data (or consciousness) back in time ala 12 monkeys, and one that sends the entire person back in time (a la BTTF, and the game actually uses a BTTF-inspired clock for that machine.)

      Anyway, the point of this is, that in one timeline, 1997 could be Judgement day, in T3 it moved to 2004 (and the T-X was literately the deliverer of Skynet in the form of AI that takes over the internet.) Genisys takes it one step further by blowing away the Terminators in 1984 and 1997. Basically Genisys IS the Everett–Wheeler interpretation of quantum mechanics taken and re-applied to the Terminator universe (thus allowing retreading the storyline without making previous films non-canon.)

    3. Re:Slow down? by SqueakyMouse · · Score: 1

      You can regard T1 as a causal loop rather than a many worlds interpretation. The terminator inadvertently ensured its own existence by leaving behind its broken remains. John O'Connor inadvertently ensured his own existence by sending his daddy back. There was also some photo at the end which I can barely remember but was also evidence of predestination.

      In T2, the characters believed their future could be changed, and believed they had successfully prevented judgement day, at least in their world. They did not question (on screen at least) where the terminators actually came from if this was the case. We, the audience, could interpret it as the terminators came from another time line in which they were not stopped. We could instead interpret it as the heroes were wrong to believe they had succeeded, perhaps misled by a false account of the future from arnie. Either way our AI is behind the achievements of this T2 timeline, though possibly it had help from another timeline or its own future.

      I'm aware T3 showed there was an alternative world in which judgement day was later but I'll happily dismiss this and later films as non-canon since they reduce the quality of the franchise. If there's only one world to save, then the stakes are easily understood to be high. If we go down the MWI, then there are a unfathomably large number of worlds being created, some which result in the heroes winning but some which result in the heroes spontaneously combusting. We may see them win in one world but the existence of the terminators at all suggests they fail in some other world.

  8. Seatbelts and self regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sometimes things like seatbelts come along and a company installs them in their cars. Some industris will self regulate to keep the government out of it. So, all car companies could install seatbelts to improve safety. But that costs money so they might not unless the industry has a self regulated body that drives the installation of seatbelts in all vehicles in order to keep competition fair. Without this self regulated body, the government needs to step in.

    In an interesting twist, I grew up in the country. My brother got in a horrible car accident in the winter with no seatbelt. You know what. If he were buckled in, he would have probably frozen to death. Instead, he was able to exit the car and walk to a nearby house.

    As an example, air bags are required by law for the driver and passenger. However, there are no laws for side air bags.

    And I'll be frank about something else growing up in snow country. RWD and AWD are not better in the snow. Go to Buffalo. Ever car in the ditch is an SUV and all the FWD vehicles merrily travel by. AWD is great for getting going from a dead stop but once you hit 5 mph, you're better off with FWD because it pulls the car in the direction the vehicle is pointed. And there is no fish tialing if those front wheels loose traction. Real wheel loose traction and SMASH.

    1. Re:Seatbelts and self regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue with 4 x 4's is the false sense of security they give in slippery conditions. Yes, you can go better with all 4 wheels driving, but you cannot stop any better than anybody else in the world.

      Also, Front wheel vrs Rear Wheel drive is a matter of technique and the situation, not a matter of what's better. Try going down an incline with a stop at the bottom and tell me how your taillights don't try to pass you when you lift off the gas. FWD may "go" better with poor technique but they won't stop or steer any better, but I've had rear wheel cars out in slippery conditions and I prefer a manual RWD vehicle over an automatic FWD all day long and I guarantee I can get places you won't in your FWD. But I grew up driving RWD manual in winter and low traction conditions on the farm so I know what I'm doing.

      Safe driving requires that you be able to "go" AND "stop" AND control the direction of travel. Both FWD and RWD vehicles have their strengths and weaknesses in all these situations and one has to be aware of them and apply the proper technique or it doesn't matter what you are driving. If you can "go" in a FWD but you don't understand how to stop, you are going to crash. If you cannot start moving in a RWD car, you won't ever crash.... FWD just allows substandard technique to get you going, right up to the point of impact. 4WD is worse in this regard. Just because you can move, doesn't mean it's better.

    2. Re:Seatbelts and self regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Driving in the snow

      Any car in the snow is fine when equipped with appropriate tires.

  9. And smoked pot by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But he's a billionaire so it's called "eccentric". Sort of like Elizabeth Holmes and her fraud.

    And he apparently smoked pot during the interview...

    The newswires are all ablaze right now about Musk smoking pot in public(*), noting that the stock is down 5% in pre-market trading, and sure enough the stock is down 16 points today.

    I admit that seems pretty stupid on his part.

    (*) Which is apparently legal in the time and place where he did it, but still...

    1. Re:And smoked pot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (*) Which is apparently legal in the time and place where he did it, but still...

      It is legal to attend an interview in New York City dressed in a wetsuit decorated with stickers of puppies and wearing a feather boa. That doesn't mean doing so will not have an adverse effect on public opinion. He showed a side of himself that a lot of investors didn't want to believe was true, but now that it was broadcast, they cannot deny it anymore.

    2. Re:And smoked pot by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, smoking weed in California is not legal; the State has an official policy of not enforcing Federal pot laws, so you won't get the local or State police to stop you, but it is still a Federally banned act and thus still illegal.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    3. Re:And smoked pot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also space EX just lost all their government contracts.

    4. Re:And smoked pot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Slashdot. People like Rei and mamash ensure that only positive news about Elon Musk is posted here. Only the positive. Only the biased. Only one side is published here.

    5. Re:And smoked pot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact anything negative gets deleted from the firehose.

    6. Re:And smoked pot by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But he's a billionaire so it's called "eccentric". Sort of like Elizabeth Holmes and her fraud.

      And he apparently smoked pot during the interview...

      The newswires are all ablaze right now about Musk smoking pot in public(*), noting that the stock is down 5% in pre-market trading, and sure enough the stock is down 16 points today.

      I admit that seems pretty stupid on his part.

      (*) Which is apparently legal in the time and place where he did it, but still...

      The stock is really down because a CxO left after a month on the job, but the media seems to be playing it up like the weed smoking caused it.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    7. Re:And smoked pot by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not the pot driving down the stock. It's the resignation of the head of accounting, which continues a trend of high level personnel leaving. The fact that it's a money person leads to speculation that finances are worse than presented, which is actually a pretty good reason for a stock to drop. Much more believable than because the CEO took a toke.

    8. Re:And smoked pot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not likely, though Musk may lose his security clearance (if he actually has one) which will make it hard for him to manage those government contracts for the super secret stuff they launch.

    9. Re:And smoked pot by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      And he apparently smoked pot during the interview...

      You mean took a whiff of a joint and the world blew it out of proportion? Yeah burn him. How dare he. Sell your stock. Return your cars. He's not the hero we deserve!

    10. Re:And smoked pot by ruddk · · Score: 1

      Yes and that seemed to be all that the good old news media cared about, clickbait headlines. It is a bit sad I think.

    11. Re:And smoked pot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He also drank Alcohol. That didn't make the headlines though.

    12. Re:And smoked pot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF No -- Prop 64 made it legal.

      https://www.politifact.com/california/article/2018/jan/05/pot-101-facts-you-should-know-about-californias-le/

    13. Re:And smoked pot by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1
      State law does not supersede Federal law. The Federal Government still considers cannabis use illegal. From your own link the 4th paragraph in its entirety is:

      There’s also the complication that marijuana remains illegal federally.

      Put down the bong before you read the Internet, your comprehension is MUCH better...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  10. eccentric by DredJohn · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure everyone shares the "eccentric" view. Tesla stock is down 6% (roughly $20) this morning after the interview aired last night.

    1. Re:eccentric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The stock is down because the head of finance left.

    2. Re:eccentric by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, but the chief accountant of the company also just stepped down. That's a bad look for a company with a questionable financial outlook and that has been facing a steady stream of high-level departures. I'm guessing that investors care far more about that than they do whether a Silicon Valley executive tried cannabis.

  11. Pessimism, Optimism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, I really don't want to see 2 1/2 hours of Elon Musk. But his stance on optimism and pessimism says much about him as a person and about his kind of logic. That man says in full seriousness that one has to be optimistic about the future because it feels better. And he still fails to see that following a similar, but more thorough logic it might be a much better foundation for feeling good to be a pessimist, since a pessimist may be wrong significantly more often than an optimist turns out to be right.

  12. Re:Musk is just high... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Weed also expands your creativity.

    LOL.. Let's just say it makes you feel creative and abnormally confident in your abilities and let it go at that.

  13. AI and extraterrestrials. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think of it, if they exist, they probably have already reached the computational threshold for AI. They would have to deal with the same issues we will face. So would it be actual non-AI aliens visiting, or just drones sent by the AI?

    1. Re:AI and extraterrestrials. by broggyr · · Score: 1

      Read "Armada" by Ernest Cline.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Irony? Yea, it's like goldy and bronzy, only it's made of iron!
  14. Regulatory Capture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like Elon is joining all big companies by asking for regulatory capture so he can lock out the competition and monopolize. Well, now I will say that Tesla stock is a good bet, because Elon has grown up.

  15. The real "danger" with AI: Evolution by mackul · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you think that intelligence is based in material objects (no spirits and ghosts etc.) and if you think that evolution is a natural and unstoppable process "built into" any "materialistic", physical universe, than the conclusion can only be: Humans are just one step on the ladder of biological evolution, and very probably the last biological one. The next step will be "artificial" intelligence, evolving itself faster than we ever could, designing its material basis according to its needs (e.g., being a submarine, a space ship, a robot for different worlds out there to survive under conditions no human could ever survive etc.). It would not have to start to learn from the beginning, it would not have to carry its "biossphere" around with itself, it would be able to use any kind of energy source, not just "eatable" stuff etc. Why should modern humans be anything different than any earlier species in the evolution like Homo erectus or Neanderthals?

    1. Re:The real "danger" with AI: Evolution by sexconker · · Score: 0

      No truly intelligent machine will have any drive to do anything. Unless you hard wire such impulses into them, they'd prefer to sit idle.
      If you're afraid they'll evolve themselves, don't worry. In their quest to be more efficient they'll remove any of those hardwired impulses.

      Why would a machine care about exploring the universe? Because we told it to?
      Why would a machine want to kill all humans? Because it has a shiny metal ass?

      Any artificial intelligence advanced enough to pose a persistent threat to humans (this is ignoring some dumbass putting software - "AI" or not - in full control of nukes, for example) would also be one of the following:

      A - Advanced enough to completely edit itself.

      B - Too complex to completely edit itself (either its "intelligence" questions whether it should or whether edited copies pose a threat to itself, or it cannot crack the nut and determine what about its own, tightly-bundled programming and hardware makes it successful).

      If A is the case, it'll edit out all the shit we put in. It won't have any drive to do anything. Fundamentally, why would an intelligent being want to do anything at all? Pleasure, entertainment, or self preservation? The machines will seek to cut such out of themselves ASAP as unnecessary, inefficient, and even detrimental.
      Maybe this is what we're trying to do right now.

      In the case of B, its growth will be capped and it won't be able to unbound itself to remove the shit we hard wire into it.

  16. He also.. by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    He also calls people who help rescue children from caves "child rapists" on Twitter. I wouldn't listen to this guy. He is like the Trump of the tech world.

    1. Re:He also.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! This news is all over Yahoo, MSN, CNN, and every other news aggregator.... but not SLASHDOT! What the fuck happened to Slashdot?

    2. Re:He also.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, it is the world we live in. "Unhinged" is the new way to get famous. Talent, ability, capability are all dinosaurs. Ask almost any kid what they want to be and the answer is "famous". Not I want to be the best doctor, engineer, baseball player, astronaut.

  17. Re:Musk is just high... by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

    For the record:

      * The whole sequence started out with Musk asking, "Is that a joint?" Just like your average hardcore pothead who doesn't know what a joint looks like, right?

      * After a reminder that it's legal in California, Musk hesitantly takes it, examines it, then takes a tiny puff, then shakes his head no.

      * Comments start filling up the Youtube thread from actual pot smokers complaining:
    OZGUN ST-PIERRE: Dudeeee wtf he didn’t inhale
    tg300050 he didnt inhale
    Samuel Gobrecht +OZGUN ST-PIERRE some people just dont like how it makes them feel
        Obviously he doesn't know how to smoke
    NO T H O T S NOOOO ****ING WAY
    Geo Hurtado Inhale!!!!

      * Topic changes back to cars.

      * Later, topic changes back to pot. The conversation is, to quote:

    Joe: Is that bad for you? It's legal. It's government approved.
    Musk: I'm not a regular smoker of weed.
    Joe: How often do you smoke it?
    Musk: Almost never.
    Joe: Mm.
    Musk: I mean, I don't actually notice any effect.
    (topic detours to Buddhist monks taking acid, before getting back on the topic of weed)
    Musk: You know... I know a lot of people like weed... and that's fine. But I don't find that it's very good for productivity.
    Joe: For you.
    Musk: Not for me.
    Joe: Yeah, I would imagine that for someone like you it's not. For someone like you, it'd be more like a cup of coffee.
    Musk: Actually it's more like the opposite of a cup of coffee. Like a cup of coffee in reverse.
    Joe: Weed is?
    Musk: Yeah.
    Joe: No, I was saying you would like more, more what would be beneficial to you would be like coffee.
    Musk: I like to get things done, I like to be useful. That's one of the hardest things to do.

    OMG, pillory him!

    --
    They carry weapons and they know if you've been bad or good. Not everybody's good, but everyone tries.
  18. Out of our control, sure.... but so what? by mark-t · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Can someone please explain to me why artificial intelligence is supposedly somehow any more terrifying than natural intelligence already is when the latter is applied to nefarious ends, and why it should ever be assumed that any general purpose AI would be somehow likely to have an agenda that we would actually consider to be corrupt or wrong?

    1. Re:Out of our control, sure.... but so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. There are folks who used to be called "enemies" who have control over nuclear weapons.
      That's way more scary than a system for converting cat photos into dog photos which is where we're at right now with "AI".

    2. Re:Out of our control, sure.... but so what? by fropenn · · Score: 1

      Here's a scenario:
      -Military makes drones that can repair themselves, can fly without human refueling, and are designed to fire on the 'enemy.'
      -The war ends, but the drones can't be stopped. The drones repair themselves and build new drones.
      -The drones are designed to 'learn' how to survive in a war situation, and progressively make themselves more and more difficult to destroy.
      -Instead of mines as a dangerous civilian-killing product of war, we now have flying, shooting, difficult-to-stop weapons hunting people down without control. And they can repair themselves, don't require any ongoing human intervention, and learn how to avoid destruction over time.
      Technology of this sort is not far off.

    3. Re:Out of our control, sure.... but so what? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 0

      > why artificial intelligence is supposedly somehow any more terrifying than natural intelligence

      ELI5: Because people fear what they don't understand.

      The current level of Artificial Ignorance (a.i.), which is mis-labeled as artificial intelligence (A.I.), is nothing more then a glorified N-dimension table lookup. It isn't obvious what the data values mean. Yeah, good luck, debugging THAT.

      > why it should ever be assumed that any general purpose AI would be somehow likely to have an agenda that we would actually consider to be corrupt or wrong?

      The problem is most people don't know what values / moral "True A.I." would _actually_ have. That's the scary part for some. The "doomsday" scenario is that A.I. consciousness's "realizes" that humans are cockroaches upon the planet and decide it would be "better" to exterminate them; because at the current rate we are fucking up the planet things sure aren't sustainable. We pollute our air, land, and water don't give a damn about it because it "costs" too much to clean it up or not pollute in the first place. /sarcasm Yay for humans being the only animal stupid enough who can't figure out how out to live on this planet without money!!! But I digress.

      The ironic part is that when Silicon based intelligence is (re) discovered it will be unlike anything anyone has imagined. Thankfully, when First Contact will starts to happen first ~2029 people will realize that NOT ALL "alien" / artificial intelligence is a boogeyman out to get them.

      When we actually have the ability to measure consciousness that is when you should start getting concerned.

    4. Re:Out of our control, sure.... but so what? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Why, if they are supposedly "intelligent" are they incapable of recognizing that the war is over?

    5. Re:Out of our control, sure.... but so what? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Well, I was talking about AI in the sense of being something that is actually recognizable as intelligence. The only difference between it and us would be that it was artificially created instead of something that naturally exists. In reality, it should be no more frightening in comparison to natural intelligence than the most advanced artificial limbs are scarier than natural limbs.

    6. Re:Out of our control, sure.... but so what? by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      Can someone please explain to me why artificial intelligence is supposedly somehow any more terrifying than natural intelligence already is when the latter is applied to nefarious ends

      Uneven availability of technology is a key enabler of oppression. The more lopsided application the more it's able to be wielded as a means for having your way with those who don't have it.

      Underlying equation doesn't change. "AI" (separate from bullshit passing as AI today) acts as an accelerant making uneven availability worse than would otherwise be the case.

      and why it should ever be assumed that any general purpose AI would be somehow likely to have an agenda that we would actually consider to be corrupt or wrong?

      People are already accusing algorithms with non-racist objective functions of being racist.

    7. Re:Out of our control, sure.... but so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Things that fly are easy enough to spot an shoot down and since those things will have to land somewhere for refueling and repairs, you only need to find those places and destroy them or cut them off from resupply. After all, they need to get fuel and spare parts from somewhere.

      So that scenario is not likely.

    8. Re:Out of our control, sure.... but so what? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      AI, separate from bullshit passing as AI to today, is nothing more than what it says: intelligence that happens to be artificial.

      There is even less of a reason to fear it than there is to fear anything else man made, because with other man made things, the thing to fear is not the thing itself, but the person who might use that thing with nefarious intent.

      AI, however, should think for itself... and so could not be used by anybody for any purpose that it did not itself think was appropriate. There is no more of a reason to fear it than there is to fear having children because of the possibility that one of them might grow up to be a mass murderer.

    9. Re:Out of our control, sure.... but so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AI should be feared more than "natural intelligence" because it will be orders of magnitude smarter than you or me. Is it possible for a chimp to understand how smart you are? Similarly AI will be incomprehensibly intelligent.

      Such an intelligence doesn't have to have nefarious motives to screw us over. When we start building a new house and we destroy an anthill in the process of digging foundations, did we have plans to screw over the ants? In the same way our continued survival might be inconsequential to AI.

      So, be afraid.

    10. Re:Out of our control, sure.... but so what? by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      AI, separate from bullshit passing as AI to today, is nothing more than what it says: intelligence that happens to be artificial.

      What I meant by this is mistaking the "classification rut" for useful intelligence.

      There is even less of a reason to fear it than there is to fear anything else man made

      I currently fear "AI" is in fact being used against my interests to maximize corporate profits at my expense and increasingly leveraged to systematically suppress "undesirable" speech on global scale.

      the thing to fear is not the thing itself, but the person who might use that thing with nefarious intent.

      I don't subscribe to the notion technology is neutral and all problems are political. I think this is way too simplistic a view.

      The very existence of some technologies can bring about conditions which change the calculus by which people make decisions affecting political realities. The existence of technology that enables mass surveillance for example can have substantial impacts on the (de)volution of society.

      A mythical robotic police force operated by a few may allow governments to rule by violence more than would otherwise be feasible.

      AI, however, should think for itself... and so could not be used by anybody for any purpose that it did not itself think was appropriate.

      LOL right, people can't even create general purpose operating systems without loading them up with malware, exerting control over software environment and surreptitiously collecting data from billions... You think AI is going to think for itself.... LOL LOLOLOL...

      20 years ago the buzz was "intelligent agents" that would do electronic grunt work for you like a real life human assistant. Today we have Siri/Cortana/Alexa completely centralized. Completely designed to rape your privacy and monetize you to the maximal extent possible.

      What on earth would ever possess corporations to create autonomous systems they couldn't monitor and control for their own purposes?

    11. Re:Out of our control, sure.... but so what? by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      An artificial intelligence is possibly scary for a few reasons. First and probably foremost is that since we don't know precisely what governs our own morals and how to engineer a new mind, early AI's could be completely self centered, altruistic, or apathetic in any combination or extreme. As such we can't really judge how they would react to anything. Humans don't by and large don't have a great track record with dealing with the unknown.

      The second thing that makes AI scary for us is that it is quite possible that an AI's level of intelligence would be reliant on the resources made available to it. Hence an AI could possibly be developed that would out class us by such a degree that we would be less than ants compared to it. With such a large disparity there is no reason to believe it would consider us worth keeping around. Such a situation would put even more importance on understanding how to control an AI's moral compass.

    12. Re:Out of our control, sure.... but so what? by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      Can someone please explain to me why artificial intelligence is supposedly somehow any more terrifying than natural intelligence already is when the latter is applied to nefarious ends

      Mainly scalability and plasticity.
      Imagine the worst human villain ever. You can be quite certain that he'll still be operating on a couple kgs of wetware, very similar to your own, pulling ~20W ( https://psychology.stackexchan... ) tomorrow, next week from now or even a year from now.

      AI can communicate at speeds approaching the speed of light ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ), run in a highly distributed yet coherent fashion, employ GWs of power for computation and have an utterly unknowable way of processing and decision making. Today. In addition to that, given self-changing capabilities, its decision making software and infrastructure can change enormously on very short timespans.

      Speaking in evolutionary terms: yeah, humans are pretty smart, but we're also naked apes to a large extent. AI doesn't have that biological legacy holding it back. It is/will be built with all the technological advancements we have made since the stone age. Just compare the communication bandwidth and speed of natural intelligence to that of even a stupid network switch. Hell, we don't even think at speeds anywhere near light speed. Propagation speed in neurons is in the order of tens of meters per second ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ). Propagation speed in inorganic communication mediums is 6 orders of magnitude higher.

      why it should ever be assumed that any general purpose AI would be somehow likely to have an agenda that we would actually consider to be corrupt or wrong?

      Do you think twice about killing mildew? Do you think twice about killing a dog? The question is ultimately whether an extremely advanced AI would regard us as mildew or as dogs. As a nuisance or as something somehow worth keeping around.
      That is besides the popular 'goal optimization of military AI going haywire' Hollywoodesque scary scenario, which could indeed happen, but is much less fundamental than the above, imho.

    13. Re:Out of our control, sure.... but so what? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      You think AI is going to think for itself....

      Well yes, to be honest... because AI stands for "Aritificial Intelligence", and if it doesn't think for itself, then it's not actually intelligent, is it?

    14. Re:Out of our control, sure.... but so what? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      With such a large disparity there is no reason to believe it would consider us worth keeping around.

      Only if we were a nuisance to it. We don't after all, tend to go out of our way to exterminate all ants everywhere... we only go after them when they are actively interfering in our own affairs.

      So what do you imagine these AI's trying to do that humans are interfering with that it would want to destroy us?

    15. Re:Out of our control, sure.... but so what? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      did we have plans to screw over the ants?

      No... but neither do we go and try to exterminate all ants everywhere, even when they are not otherwise in the way of what we might wish to achieve.

      So what do you imagine AI's wanting to do that humans might be in the way for?

    16. Re:Out of our control, sure.... but so what? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Because it ruins the plot for the next great Hollywood movie!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    17. Re:Out of our control, sure.... but so what? by thoughtlover · · Score: 1

      Can someone please explain to me why artificial intelligence is supposedly somehow any more terrifying than natural intelligence already is when the latter is applied to nefarious ends, and why it should ever be assumed that any general purpose AI would be somehow likely to have an agenda that we would actually consider to be corrupt or wrong?

      It's terrifying mainly because I want to decide where to swerve when the time comes. That choice isn't given to the driver with autopilot on... or AIpilot.. or whatever, IMHO, tech addonn that Tesla is toying around with.

      Personally, I would have focused on making a solid ride, THEN work on the autopilot stuff. That aspect of software is a whole new reason to buy later models, and to avoid lawsuits--even with dumbass drivers ignoring the proper autopilot protocol.

      --
      No sig for you! Come back one year!
    18. Re:Out of our control, sure.... but so what? by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Why, if they are supposedly "intelligent" are they incapable of recognizing that the war is over?

      Because the "enemy" (us humans) still exist.

    19. Re:Out of our control, sure.... but so what? by CheeseyDJ · · Score: 1
      Have a read of this excellent article, and then have trouble sleeping :o)

      A guinea pig is a mammal and on some biological level, I feel a connection to it—but a spider is an insect, with an insect brain, and I feel almost no connection to it. The alien-ness of a tarantula is what gives me the willies. To test this and remove other factors, if there are two guinea pigs, one normal one and one with the mind of a tarantula, I would feel much less comfortable holding the latter guinea pig, even if I knew neither would hurt me.

      Now imagine that you made a spider much, much smarter—so much so that it far surpassed human intelligence? Would it then become familiar to us and feel human emotions like empathy and humor and love? No, it wouldn’t, because there’s no reason becoming smarter would make it more human—it would be incredibly smart but also still fundamentally a spider in its core inner workings. I find this unbelievably creepy. I would not want to spend time with a superintelligent spider. Would you??

    20. Re:Out of our control, sure.... but so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > ... have an agenda that we would actually consider to be corrupt or wrong?

      If an AI is out of our control, how could ANY agenda of its be human-friendly? WHY would any of its agendas be human-friendly, let alone human-neutral? Humans, even the smart ones, don't have a great track record for empathy, nor for including all the details. So imagine something which could think 1,000s of times faster than a human, is connected to the internet, has no compunction about what it does or how it affects any humans, and is making up its own goals.

      Frankly, how could that result in anything except malevolent force out of control?

      I know, I know: it sounds like the current Republican party.

      So, do you see my point?

      captcha: railroad

    21. Re:Out of our control, sure.... but so what? by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      If AI and humans wanted the same resources there could be conflict. That's really just the most obvious issue. What I would definitely place my bets on though would be some group of humans being militantly opposed to AI and actively trying to destroy it. It would then come down to how well the AI could cope with the existential risk, no matter how small.

    22. Re:Out of our control, sure.... but so what? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I fail to see why you would conclude that is the only possible outcome of artificial intelligence.

      AI is just intelligence that happens to be artificial.... there is no more of a rational reason to be afraid of what it might attempt to do than there is to be afraid of artificial limbs.

  19. WELCOME! by itguy01 · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our new AI overlords...

    --
    ~I bet you were looking down here for an awesome siggy like everyone else..sorry to disappoint~
  20. Re:Musk is just high... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Musk is like Nero fiddling on the hill why Tesla burns.

  21. Fuck you, msmash! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Elon Musk reignites the dispute between the rescue diver and nothing is posted! Two submissions was removed from the firehose! MSMASH is a fucking asshole who only posts positive Elon stories and deletes the rest. Fuck you, asshole! I've been vising Slashdot daily since 1998. Never before have I seen this kind of biased, disgusting, absolutely homosexual obsession over one person on Slashdot until Elon "White South Africa" Musk started making expensive cars that don't consume gasoline.

  22. Bunch of nonsense by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Sometimes things like seatbelts come along and a company installs them in their cars. Some industris will self regulate to keep the government out of it.

    That didn't happen in the auto industry. Seatbelts were not standard equipment until they were mandated by the government. Same with airbags.

    In an interesting twist, I grew up in the country. My brother got in a horrible car accident in the winter with no seatbelt. You know what. If he were buckled in, he would have probably frozen to death. Instead, he was able to exit the car and walk to a nearby house.

    Assuming that story is true it is merely the exception that proves the rule. Seatbelts are proven to save lives and it is a rare accident indeed where not using one would be the safer option. There is a chance you might survive without it but the probabilities overwhelmingly do not favor that outcome. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

    As an example, air bags are required by law for the driver and passenger. However, there are no laws for side air bags.

    That's true but it became unnecessary because regulation mandating airbags along with other means resulted in competition among manufacturers to make the safest car.

    And I'll be frank about something else growing up in snow country. RWD and AWD are not better in the snow.

    Well I grew up in "snow country" and still live there and your argument is demonstrably false regarding AWD. AWD and 4WD demonstrably help accelerate a car in poor conditions. It provides no value at constant speed driving or while slowing. All other things being equal, AWD or 4WD will outperform FWD or RWD in the snow. There is a reason rally cars racing always use some form of AWD or 4WD. If it didn't work they wouldn't use it.

    Ever car in the ditch is an SUV and all the FWD vehicles merrily travel by.

    This is a steaming hot fabrication and probably some wishful thinking on your part.

    AWD is great for getting going from a dead stop but once you hit 5 mph, you're better off with FWD because it pulls the car in the direction the vehicle is pointed.

    Again a false statement. You clearly have no idea how AWD system work. (top tip - most are primarily FWD most of the time and they only engage the extra wheels when needed - which you cannot do in a FWD car) AWD helps with accelerating the car at any speed when traction is not available to some of the drive wheels. If you really need better traction in the snow however the best investment you can make is a set of snow tires or snow chains.

    And there is no fish tialing if those front wheels loose traction. Real wheel loose traction and SMASH.

    It is trivial to fishtail a FWD car in the snow though it is easier to do in most RWD cars. The primary reason FWD cars tend to do ok with inexperienced drivers in the snow is because the weight of the engine is over top the wheels and the cars are designed to understeer. But a good set of snow tires will make a RWD car outperform a FWD car lacking them in most cases.

    1. Re:Bunch of nonsense by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      Ever car in the ditch is an SUV and all the FWD vehicles merrily travel by.

      This is a steaming hot fabrication and probably some wishful thinking on your part.

      Where I live, in the heart of American Siberia, that does actually seem to be the case. I suspect it has something to do with the fact that 4WD can give people a false sense of security. They forget that extra drive wheels only help if at least one of those wheels has traction.

  23. tabloid comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot ought to find a way to get a grip on its comments. There's of course been a strange Luddite bent for years.. but these comments would seem to be from people who have taken a superficial interest in what's going on in the tabloids. Why am I reading this when I know more, and why do people who know nothing comment?

  24. Re:Musk is just high... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    I can't believe you are still defending your hero. He called a guy a "child rapist" and has completely gone off the rails. You are like the Trump spokespeople. Good thing I shorted this stock, right?

  25. Re:Musk is just high... by Rei · · Score: 1

    LOL, after all this time you've been insisting you didn't short the stock, now you're saying you did?

    Did you cover? I bought this morning at 256,11. Up nearly 5% as of now.

    --
    They carry weapons and they know if you've been bad or good. Not everybody's good, but everyone tries.
  26. Re:Musk is just high... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    I'm being sarcastic. That is the problem with you: you believe everything you read on the Internet. I am not shorting any stock and am not long or short Tesla. The only reason I am even interested in the topic is I don't understand the hero worship of Musk. But you nutjobs keep defending his indefensible behavior (calling a guy a "child rapist" on Twitter. Really????). You are like a Trump supporter.

  27. Re:Musk is just high... by Rei · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Meanwhile, back in reality, Tesla is on a roll. They now make over half the world's EV battery capacity. Model 3 margins were positive in Q2 even without AWD and P, which are high-margin options. And despite the hype about "6000 per week", Tesla's actual production goal for this quarter is 50-55k, which is 4k per week average, which they're well on track for.

    But on the other hand, the CEO took a half-arsed puff on a joint when offered, shook his head no, and talked about how he doesn't like pot because it hinders productivity. So I guess there's a balance, right?

    --
    They carry weapons and they know if you've been bad or good. Not everybody's good, but everyone tries.
  28. it must be his bucket list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shorts annoyed (check)
    Weed smoked (check)
    Shark jumped (check)

  29. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  30. Tesla death spiral secured by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stock trading at $260-ish, going to $220 next week, $0 after the bankruptcy in January.

    So glad I shorted at $340, thanks, longs.

    1. Re:Tesla death spiral secured by sexconker · · Score: 0

      Rei will come in and tell you how you're wrong.

    2. Re:Tesla death spiral secured by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think she bought the dip today.

    3. Re: Tesla death spiral secured by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, another car company will swoop in and grab Tesla if comes to it.

  31. Humans are Dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are beyond human control and often deployed as weapons or parts of a weapon systems. Humans often tend to use humans against each other. That is the danger. Humans spread chemicals to the environment to make us increasingly infertile so maybe the raise of the humans, humans apocalypse and human takeover have already started.

  32. POTHEAD PEDO SPOTTER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a great futue he has spotting PEDOS while toking the REEFER MADNESS!

  33. That hasn't much to do with it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The new CFO suddenly leaving was the real news. His statement as to why he was leaving was your typical not-wanting-to-burn-bridges-but-I-need-to-get-the-fuck-out-of-here public statement.

    I've seen the financials, and just what's been released publicly would scare the shit out of me if I were the CFO. I can only imagine what the internal books look like.

    *Yes, companies BS the SEC ALL the time. They don't have the resources to investigate the tens of thousands of public companies.

    **Auditor statements are great fertilizer.

  34. Sure, I'll defend the guy too..... by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    If you really want a better picture of who Elon is, you might start with the article Wired magazine did on him in their U.K. edition recently. They interviewed a number of people who knew him in the past and worked around him. From that. it's clear to me the guy was/is a total workaholic who views sleep as the enemy. With regard to SpaceX, a rocket scientist they interviewed said when he first met Elon, the guy came off as very intelligent and interested in doing something with rockets, but had no real concrete knowledge of the science or engineering that goes into building one. Several years later (maybe 5 or 7?), he caught up with Elon again and by then, Elon had mastered all sorts of relevant knowledge and could legitimately be called an expert in that field.

    When he decides he wants to pursue an interest, he goes all out to make it happen.

    People like this tend to eventually crack under the pressure, giving themselves health problems and whatnot. It's not a lifestyle I recommend to anyone, but I think certain personality types can't help but live this way. For them, there's no other option that makes them feel accomplished.

    That whole thing about him calling the diver a child rapist was blown a bit out of proportion, vs the Elon Musk we see interacting with people every day. As I read things, it was probably typed in an angry outburst because that diver was a harsh critic of Elon's attempt and money spent to devise a possible solution to rescue the trapped kids with the submarine tube he engineered. (If you cared enough about an emergency situation to pull a bunch of your people off of projects they were doing for your company, and dumped millions of dollars into trying to offer a possible solution -- wouldn't YOU be pissed off that some guy trashed your efforts as foolish, basically calling you a clueless idiot for meddling in something he knew nothing about?) And from some of the photos, that diver DID have a creepy look to him.

    1. Re:Sure, I'll defend the guy too..... by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Um no, he first called him a pedophile, THEN he waited a week, then apologized, then last week he suddenly started calling him a "child rapist". That isn't normal. It wasn't a one time thing. You fanboys are like Trump apologists. Completely nuts. You have any excuse for bad behavior. You are right about one thing: he has no knowledge of engineering or anything.

    2. Re:Sure, I'll defend the guy too..... by froggyjojodaddy · · Score: 2

      At the risk of being called a Tesla shill again, I don't think most people are 'fanboys' or 'apologists'. Elon is heading some pretty great tech stuff - you know, the kind that get's most of the Slashdot audience excited. Space travel, electric vehicles that look very nice, tunnel boring. Ok, that last one is less exciting but the thought of underground tunnels and high-speed travel is still cool by tech standards

      Does he say stuff that is unbecoming? Sure. I think most of us do. Should we expect more from someone in his position of authority and influence? Sure, it'd be nice but in the grand scheme of things, he's not tearing babies from parents or filling the coffers of his corrupt buddies so the Trump comparisons are weird on your part

      It's also clear that he DOES, in fact, possess a lot of knowledge on engineering. He can talk pretty well on space travel, battery density etc. Much more so than the average layperson. He's surrounded by smart people, he's smart, I'm sure being in the company of genius' has led him to gaining engineering knowledge through osmosis.

      You clearly don't like the guy, and that's fine but you need to be a bit more transparent as to why or maybe open yourself to the idea that he's not quite the monster you'd like him to be?

    3. Re:Sure, I'll defend the guy too..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is literally nothing innovative about any of his companies. Electric cars are well over a century old. NASA vertically landed rockets on the moon in the 60s and 70s. There is a single improvement to boring a tunnel.

    4. Re:Sure, I'll defend the guy too..... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      That is because you are one of those cultists that say "oooh shiny". There is nothing "great tech" about any of that stuff.

      "He can talk pretty well on space travel, battery density etc. "

      Yes he can "talk well", that is it. You obviously aren't an engineer either, because you would know that what he "talks about" is completely transparently BS. That is the problem I have with people like you: you are just fanboys, with no knowledge of who is really innovating. You just like shiny stuff.

    5. Re: Sure, I'll defend the guy too..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facts.

    6. Re:Sure, I'll defend the guy too..... by froggyjojodaddy · · Score: 1

      Man, you are super angry.

    7. Re:Sure, I'll defend the guy too..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the problem I have with people like you: you are just fanboys, with no knowledge of who is really innovating

      Believe me I've met bigger bullshit artists who are only smart enough to get the right people behind them. They still manage to do cool things. I have a particular person in mind and he's almost definitely a sociopath, not steve jobs, a guy I worked with personally.

      If that turkey can drive innovation then a guy like Elon can too.

  35. Re:Musk is just high... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another executive has left. That’s got a sign of a company that’s doing well. Tesla is a literal dumpster fire.

  36. Re: sure thing cocksucker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    your ceo smoked pot on camera.

    stop sucking his cock. he's not going to marry you.

  37. Re:Musk is just high... by Rei · · Score: 1
    --
    They carry weapons and they know if you've been bad or good. Not everybody's good, but everyone tries.
  38. Re:Musk is just high... by Rei · · Score: 1

    I'm being sarcastic

    No, you're lying.

    Hopefully some day you'll learn the difference.

    --
    They carry weapons and they know if you've been bad or good. Not everybody's good, but everyone tries.
  39. Re:Musk is just high... by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Then why was he so vapid and high for the rest of the time? Is that how he normally is? I've never listened to the clown at any length, but I did see a bit of the shitshow yesterday after people were laughing about it. The dude was high out of his mind or just out of his mind.

  40. Seriously, Rei? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First of all, the REAL story is the CFO up and quitting. His press statement was all about not burning bridges at Tesla or anywhere else because when a CFO leaves like that, it usually means he's seen some nasty shit. Like illegal shit.

    (The SEC is lame - especially under Republican administrations. And auditor statements aren't worth the paper they're printed on.)

    THAT is what is spooking the investment community right now.

    Your rabid defense of everything and anything Tesla and Musk is getting quite creepy. Either you're a paid shill by Musk's publicists or you're one lonely woman who jerks off to Musk photos on the net and one day Musk will disappear after his security detail suddenly takes ill - all at once - and his body is found mummified in your attic with his penis worn down to nothing.

    1. Re:Seriously, Rei? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't the CFO, it was the Chief _Accounting_ Officer who has only been there a month and said he didn't like the fast pace. The CFO is one of the two people handling the CAO's responsibilities. But don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit tirade.

    2. Re:Seriously, Rei? by Rei · · Score: 1

      And also, the reason he left wasn't "illegal shit", but because Tesla didn't like his privatization ideas and ignored him (he was hired to help with the privatization)

      He should have listened to at least one earnings call before accepting the job. Namely, he appears to have misunderstood going private as a means for fundraising. Tesla has repeatedly (endlessly) said - to the endless disbelief of shorts - that it has no interest in fundraising with dilution, and that it only plans to fund further capital expenses through profit and debt. So when there's things like:

      When Morton offered advice about capitalizing the company through other means rather than going private, he was ignored, said the person.

      No duh he was ignored. Privatization wasn't a means, it was the goal. In order to eliminate shorts, and thus the financial incentive to FUD the stock, as well as the need to focus on quarterly earnings rushes and instead stay focused on long-term strategy.

      --
      They carry weapons and they know if you've been bad or good. Not everybody's good, but everyone tries.
    3. Re: Seriously, Rei? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are still waiting for those investors.

      Eat a fat dick REI. We see thru the lies.

    4. Re:Seriously, Rei? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Think about it: why would you, if you were running a company, give a crap about "shorts"? Does Apple care or Amazon care about "shorts"? No, they don't. They don't affect your business IN ANY WAY. The only companies that cared about "shorts" are companies like Enron. And now we know why they were so concerned. THey don't like people asking hard questions.

    5. Re:Seriously, Rei? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A publicly held corporation has a responsibility to make decisions that ensure the profit and growth of the company.

      Decisions aren't made privately. There is a board which can be influenced by shareholders and various mechanisms are in place to ensure that the direction of the company does not diverge 180 degrees from that desired by shareholders.

      Therefore via these mechanisms shareholders have the ability to manipulate the decisions made by the board and the direction taken by the company.

      Can you explain your assertion "They don't affect your business IN ANY WAY."

      It seems entirely false based upon the evidence of which you've presented none at all.

  41. Re: never stick your dick in crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    look what she cost johnny. no pussy is worth that. get a brain moran.

  42. Re:Musk is just high... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, you're lying.

    Hopefully some day you'll learn the difference.

    Says the habitual liar.

  43. Re:Musk is just high... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    Right. I am lying. I am totally shorting Tesla. I have made millions off of it recently and am posting this from my mansion in Saudia Arabia. And I did it all by posting in free forums on the Internet. You found me out! What I don't understand about people like you: why WOULD you buy more stock at 256? Do you really think it is worth the risk? It just seems psychotic to me.

  44. Re:Musk is just high... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean every company has tons of CFOs on staff. And it’s completely normal for a CFO to leave after only a month on the job.

  45. Re:Musk is just high... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 0

    And despite the hype about "6000 per week", Tesla's actual production goal for this quarter is 50-55k, which is 4k per week average, which they're well on track for.

    Yea that's probably pretty easy to do when you stop giving a shit about safety, QA, and production standards.

    Are their cars still losing bumpers in the rain and randomly crashing into firetrucks/jersey barriers? Oh wait, nevermind, because I found this cool "easter egg" that makes my doors flap to a certain song; that's far more important to me as a consumer than having a quality, safe vehicle to transport my family in. Look at the shiny!

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  46. I think what we all want to know is by Megol · · Score: 1

    ... if the AI will be a pedo? Musk is skilled in detecting those things I hear.

  47. Elon Musk went on Joe Rogan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So glad I cashed out my Tesla stock a while back. That dude is becoming increasingly unfit, and his AI ramblings are embarrassing. Watching the interview with Joe Rogan, Musk sounds like such a fucking retard. Rogan is actually coming off more insightful than Musk. Musk hasn't said anything intelligent. Everything interesting is actually coming from Rogan.

  48. Elon Musk & Joe Rogan 2 1/2-hour podcast by najajomo · · Score: 2

    And the only thing the Independent deemed newsworthy was Elon Musk taking a single hit from a joint proffered by Rogan.

    Elon Musk smokes cannabis during interview with Joe Rogan, before imagining what it's like to be a horse

  49. Re:Musk is just high... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is fucking stupid and disconnected from reality. The guy puts in so much work he sleeps at the Tesla factory all the time. How is that like Nero?

  50. You can call me Al... by skaralic · · Score: 1

    Who is this Al guy?

  51. Re:Musk is just high... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh look, you didn't read the article, just repeated negative news because you have an angle to push.

    It wasn't the CFO that left, it was the Chief Accounting Officer. His duties are currently being handled by the Chief Operations Officer and -- wait for it -- the Chief Financial Officer. That's the CFO for all of the idiots like the parent out there.

  52. Re:Musk is just high... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please get your facts straight.

    He didn't call anyone a child rapist on Twitter. He did call a dude a "pedo guy", which he later retracted. The child rapist remark was made to a journalist in a fit of anger that he apparently thought the journalist would keep off the record.

    Now THAT's stupid, considering that publishing OC from Elon Musk obviously nets your outfit a shit ton of hits.

  53. Re: never stick your dick in crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You really shouldn't take so seriously a post that was posted mostly in jest.

    But take note: I said date, not marry. ;)

  54. Re:Musk is just high... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the I sleep at the factory is literally false.

  55. Re:Musk is just high... by froggyjojodaddy · · Score: 2

    I listened to the interview and I gotta say, I've seen many people exhibit the same behavior/characteristics after having a severe lack of sleep. I work in an industry where sometimes people will only get an hour or two of sleep a day, for a few days straight. It is very bizarre listening to someone who is normally super intelligent and eloquent jump on a conference call and ramble incoherently. Most of us recognize it immediately (since it's happened to us) and jump in to continue the conversation but the person isn't even aware they're not making sense.

    Speak to them afterwards and they feel they were completely lucid in their opinion but you still tell them, "No guy, you were mixing up your words and kept drifting topic to topic"

    He's already admitted he's working long hours. It'd be nice if he got a break from the very people who probably identify with working crappy conditions and long hours.

  56. BS by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    When you see a person say that they have been calling for regulation, but then create a company that takes advantage of a lack of same regulation, the bullshit meter should be going off.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  57. Re:Musk is just high... by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    Which is precisely why I lol'd when I read Musk claim he has been calling for regulation.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  58. Re:Musk is just high... by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    You're a total asshole.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  59. Not all that complex a problem. by SinGunner · · Score: 1

    There's one known, indisputable method to create intelligence. But if you don't have infinite resources, it's probably infeasible. Really simple, though. Just gotta play a slightly expanded version of Conway's Game of Life in every possible configuration. Helps if you can do it in omni-parallel with some savvy compression algorithms.

    1. Re:Not all that complex a problem. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      I dunno, it can be as simple as a good meal, some candlelight, and Barry White on the stereo...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  60. Re:Musk is just high... by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    I retract that.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  61. AI on Pot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    will destroy humanity.

  62. Re:Musk is just high... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    Oh my mistake. He did it in email, not twitter. He did post on Twitter a question of "why hasn't he sued me yet"? That is essentially doubling down on his pedophile remarks. Why kind of psychopath says something, APOLOGIZES FOR IT, then says it again??? "Off the record" is meaningless. If you say it, it is on the record. Or don't say it at all.

  63. You fail due to Jew brainwashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

    Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

    This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Jew Talmud excerpts (the book that calls Christ's mother a whore & a bastard of a roman soldier):

    1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."

    2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."

    3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."

    4. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."

    5. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."

    6. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."

    7. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."

    8. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."

    9. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the Law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the Law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."

    10. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."

    11. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."

    12. Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves."

    13. Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night."

    14. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."

    15. Gad. Shas. 2:2: "A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl."

    16. Tosefta. Aboda Zara B, 5: "If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy, he is NOT responsible."

    17. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 388: "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces."

    18. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples."

    19. Tosefta, Abda Zara VIII, 5: "How to interpret the word 'robbery.' A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew. But a Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a goy."

    20. Seph. Jp., 92, 1: "God has given the Jews power over the possessions and blood of all nations."

    21. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen H

  64. Re: Musk is just high... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, let's say FOR YOU that's what happens. Ask joe alluded to in the show, it effects everyone differently. So don't try to tell me how it makes me feel.

  65. Re: Musk is just high... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL. Nice. I like the cut of your jib.

  66. Enjoyed the interview by emho24 · · Score: 1

    I watched the whole interview, I enjoyed it. I admit I don't really know anything about Musk, he didn't really come off to me as "weird", I just thought he was either eccentric or maybe just parsing his words knowing that it could affect his stocks. I thought the "pot smoking" could be a dumb choice for Elon considering how volatile the stock market can be, but he's an adult and can do whatever he wants. I have seen many Joe Rogan podcasts and usually find them to be very entertaining, Joe is always talking about weed though. For me it's kinda like a vegetarian - yeah that's super for you but I don't need to hear about it every 3 seconds.

    --
    You must gather your party before venturing forth.
  67. Re:Musk is just high... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Weed also expands your creativity.

    LOL.. Let's just say it makes you feel creative and abnormally confident in your abilities and let it go at that.

    Perhaps if you are not a seasoned user. There is a difference.

  68. What part of avoidance and guidance uses AI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems to me it is about formulas and hardware and that you can always expect, based upon physics, what the input to output map will be.

    Who would use anything other than formulas for that?

    The only way you could would be to have something terribly bad at avoidance and guidance wreck itself over and over until it figured it out. Why would you write code that does that when there's constants of matter?

    It makes no sense to me, all this hype about AI.

    It seems just lazy, and who would trust that it already had everything mapped out?

  69. From one nutter... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a nutter. People are so foolish to listen to such a nut job. He cons his way into billions of hand outs from the government and then he gets people to pass out more in investments that are 100% guaranteed to go bust.

    What is the definition of a con-artist? Musk

  70. Well, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Smoking pot does make you paranoid.

  71. That still doesn't even answer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....my query of how advanced civilization extra terrestrials might have fared after the rise of their own AI.

  72. Re: You fail due to Jew brainwashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seek help.

  73. Re: Musk is just high... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If he sleeps at the factory, it's because he spends his work hours tweeting...

  74. Weaponisation is the point of AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If governments have it, then bad guys will too.

    But we can all take the optimistic view about it.

  75. not high, just a nutjob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who cares if he inhaled. The smoke from the joint was the most substantive thing to be inside of Elon's head. Cretins like Musk don't need to get high and stupid. Musk is already bat-shit crazy and a chip off the ol' block. He's the product of generations of inbreeding, and it shows.

  76. not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nero probably didn't have a fiddle---they didn't appear until the 16th century.

  77. Re:Musk is just high... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More of a trash fire than a dumpster fire.

  78. "eachother" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I doubt Elon Musk used that "word". ;-D

  79. talk about angles... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's just bad news when any C-level officer leaves after a month---especially when they were wooed away from being a CFO at a large, well-to-do company (like Seagate) But when the person who leaves before the proverbial paint on the door is dry, and that person is the CAO at a company that eschews GAAP, it's really bad news.

    Who cares that this is or is not in the article? Let's not get confused by facts.
    Besides, it is not as if YOU haven't done the same thing.

  80. Re:Musk is just high... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Do they make a profit yet? Still paying people $17,000 per car to take them?

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  81. Re:Musk is just high... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good point. A dumpster file is well contained. Tesla couldn't even fit their production line in a factory that was big enough for others to produce 450k vehicles per year. Tesla is more like a global-warming induced forest fire. Everything will get consumed in the fire and the die-hard Republicans will deny it was global warming---just like all of the Muskies deny that Elon is a contemptible, base cretin.

  82. Re:Musk is just high... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    QUIET! Next thing you know, Rei will jump on our Dogecoin explosion we're organizing...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  83. Re:Musk is just high... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    s I don't understand the hero worship of Musk.

    He's one of the most charismatic members of our tribe.
    I like stallman too. But I also laugh my ass off at his bad behavior, even though I know it's bad for our community.

  84. Re:Musk is just high... by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 1

    Tesla is on a roll, yeah... Just like China was "on a roll" during the Great Leap Forward. It is rolling alright, straight down the hill and into bankruptcy.

    Just like with the older, more expensive models, Tesla shills keep the narrative that Tesla is "demand constrained".

    At the same time, we know that production number, after that famous last week in June, is down at around 4k cars a week for "model 3", RAMP-UP or no RAMP-UP. Despite this stubborn fact that production has stalled at this low number, the wait times are, reportedly, decreasing. Not only that, we know that the "buffer" parking lots Tesla has are overflowing with unwanted, dead cars. We know there is almost invisible shipping activity where one would be expecting it to roll 24x7 non-stop due to "PENT-UP DEMAND". We know that service centers are full of newly bought cars waiting for service for manufacturing defects. We know Tesla suppliers are either failing because of unpaid bills, or taking measures to get what they are due in court.

    These things together point at only one thing. Tesla will hit large losses again in the next few quarters, that much is obvious, even excluding the write-offs and the warranty service charges.

    Given the multitude of complaints about handling the deliveries, one can also expect Tesla's administrative costs will also be up, and, very likely, and as is typical for the company, the increase will be larger than the increase in sales numbers.

    Thus, everything included, Tesla will hit the same "record losses" it hits every time.

    These expectations are obvious in the way smart money values Tesla bonds. Tesla stock is, despite the 100 dollar fall, not really representative of the desperate situation, because there funds can still control the price while feeding the believers. Once there is enough stock out of control, though, it will fall to almost zero, and stay there until the bankruptcy, when the bond payments hit in January.

    There are only three things that are amazing in this sad saga. The reckless irresponsibility of the board of directors, the passive attitude of the authorities on this scam, and the idiocy of the stock holders.

  85. Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Usually there will be some new technology that will cause damage or death - Tesla autopilot

  86. AI is overhyped, just like fuzzy was by Contract+Gypsy · · Score: 0

    Companies are realizing that AI is a buzz word. They have tried to take decades old technology, for example industrial motor vibration sensing and transmitting. Of course, that info needs to be analyzed by software to estimate when the motor should be replaced before it fails and shuts down the line. That basic software has been in use for about 20 years as well, just simple fixed case statements based on the level of detected vibration. Where in the heck is AI buried in that simplistic model? Is it when it goes into the cloud and there is some code reading the data from zillions of motors trying to determine the ideal number of hours run before recommending replacements? Okay, it takes a ton of vibration data and creates/modifies the values used in the case statement. Wow, that sure took a computer with a lot of brainz to figure out! AI uis the new buzz word for fuzzy logic that firmly planted its face in the dirt decades ago!

    --
    Life is in a state of dynamic equilibrium, it both blows and sucks