Tesla has always invested heavily in their software. Just because it has always been shitty doesn’t diminish that it was an outsized part of their business model, especially compared to other car companies
Why must tech company and car company be mutually exclusive? Certainly the amount of technology (including ML) present in cars has increased exponentially in the last decade.
I suppose I define AI company differently than you do. In my mind if a company is investing a large chunk of its operations budget in AI R&D, it is an AI company.
By your logic tesla is also a logistics company (shipping cars), an industrial manufacturer of plant machinery (the machines to build the cars), a battery company (buying and investing in battery technology).
what do you call tesla? “An automotive, AI, logistics, industrial plant manufacturing, battery company”?
Do you agree with amber heard “I use pledging and donating as the same thing” when they clearly are not the same thing?
I would absolutely call Tesla a battery company. Would you not? They’ve invested a huge amount in battery R&D and sell them direct to consumers as well as use them in their cars. The rest of that stuff isn’t something they invested heavily in developing, ie. they didn’t invest R&D in developing new logistics technology for shipping cars.
If a company invests a large chunk of its money in tech, particularly tech R&D, I’d describe it as a tech company. I don’t view that term as mutually exclusive with other things such as automotive manufacturing. To me this is as silly as someone saying “Apple is a phone manufacturer company, not a tech company” or “Amazon is a cloud service provider, not a video streaming company”. Companies can be more than one thing.
Again, none of what I’m saying is predicated on that tech being any good. I am well aware Tesla’s software is often dogshit. I’m just talking in terms of where they direct their efforts.
You could do that. But you’d be in the minority of people when you do, and it makes it very hard to communicate when two people are in disagreement in terms.
It doesn’t make it hard to communicate if they’ve clarified their meaning multiple times, unless the other people are intentionally not understanding what they say.
Ugh you guys can be so deliberately obtuse. Yes, if a company makes revenue from an AI offering, and spends a significant amount of their money developing that AI offering then yes, it can be considered an AI company. Just because the feature is stupid or dangerous doesn’t invalidate that accounting.
Which is exactly what my question that started this thread was about. I was asking what exactly it means for him to make this statement when they are already heavily invested in AI development.
I guess if you think AI and car are mutually exclusive. I would have described Tesla as an AI car company.
What AI products, except their broken self driving feature, does tesla sell?
Is every other manufacturer of cars with any self driving type functionality now an “AI” company to you?
Tesla has always invested heavily in their software. Just because it has always been shitty doesn’t diminish that it was an outsized part of their business model, especially compared to other car companies
So wait, are you now saying they are a technology company? Can you please try and keep your mental gymnastics consistent?
Are you implying all car manufacturers are now AI or Technology companies? And are no longer automotive manufacturers?
exactly. if you own a hammer, youre a construction firm, apparently.
Why must tech company and car company be mutually exclusive? Certainly the amount of technology (including ML) present in cars has increased exponentially in the last decade.
Because they do not produce and sell independent AI technology
I suppose I define AI company differently than you do. In my mind if a company is investing a large chunk of its operations budget in AI R&D, it is an AI company.
By your logic tesla is also a logistics company (shipping cars), an industrial manufacturer of plant machinery (the machines to build the cars), a battery company (buying and investing in battery technology).
what do you call tesla? “An automotive, AI, logistics, industrial plant manufacturing, battery company”?
Do you agree with amber heard “I use pledging and donating as the same thing” when they clearly are not the same thing?
Tesla sells a shitload of batteries outside of their cars, so yeah I’d say they’re a battery company.
They also sell the FSD software, which is “AI” so they do have an AI offering, for some definition of AI.
Also, they sell solar panels, so they’re a solar panel company.
I would absolutely call Tesla a battery company. Would you not? They’ve invested a huge amount in battery R&D and sell them direct to consumers as well as use them in their cars. The rest of that stuff isn’t something they invested heavily in developing, ie. they didn’t invest R&D in developing new logistics technology for shipping cars.
TIL the company I work at is an AI company since we develop software
Do they develop ML software, models, or algorithms?
by your own definition (implements custom ML), BMW, AUDI, etc are all now AI companies. as well has thousands of analytic firms.
a ceo is hyping a tool, and its not even fucking AI.
If a company invests a large chunk of its money in tech, particularly tech R&D, I’d describe it as a tech company. I don’t view that term as mutually exclusive with other things such as automotive manufacturing. To me this is as silly as someone saying “Apple is a phone manufacturer company, not a tech company” or “Amazon is a cloud service provider, not a video streaming company”. Companies can be more than one thing.
Again, none of what I’m saying is predicated on that tech being any good. I am well aware Tesla’s software is often dogshit. I’m just talking in terms of where they direct their efforts.
You could do that. But you’d be in the minority of people when you do, and it makes it very hard to communicate when two people are in disagreement in terms.
It doesn’t make it hard to communicate if they’ve clarified their meaning multiple times, unless the other people are intentionally not understanding what they say.
If Musk said the sky is blue, and you agreed with that on Lemmy, then you’d be downvoted.
Ugh you guys can be so deliberately obtuse. Yes, if a company makes revenue from an AI offering, and spends a significant amount of their money developing that AI offering then yes, it can be considered an AI company. Just because the feature is stupid or dangerous doesn’t invalidate that accounting.
Enjoy a little nuance from time to time.
What? you entirely missed the point. you are adding nuance where none is required.
Tesla is a car company. Just because musk says “we are AI now” doesn’t just magically make it so.
I could form a company that makes shoes. Can I suddenly announce I am an AI company?
Sure, maybe I use AI in my production, and maybe even develop my own models.
But its still a shoe company.
Wow, if only something can be two things at once! But no, that’s impossible!
Fantastic reply. 10/10. Really adds to the discussion.
I hope the rest of your day is as lovely as your personality
Musk is saying it is one thing, not two things.
Which is exactly what my question that started this thread was about. I was asking what exactly it means for him to make this statement when they are already heavily invested in AI development.
It is Musk saying that the company is changing focus away from making cars.
You know, the reason the company exists.
McDonald’s makes most of its money on real estate, not food. If the CEO said ‘we are a real estate company now’ everyone would assume that the food quality will go down.