Were you around here ten years ago when that exact argument was regularly regurgitated about Uber? Notice that argument is no longer popular?
The point is that losing money isn't a sure sign that a business is doomed. Who knows where OpenAI will end up, but people still line up to invest. Those investors have billions reasons to be due diligent. Unlike what's claimed around here, most of investors aren't stupid. You yourself wouldn't be stupid either if money is at stake.
This is more a form of commoditizing your compliment as they don't see the model as a product but more like a programming language or other tool that you build products with.
Cancer except when it’s in the form that I approve such as HN? Where it has all the problems of social media — astroturfing, self promoting, bots, etc.
Please. At best HN has a very small subset of the problems in social media, and its positives easily outweigh its negatives. This is a well moderated forum with a lot of bright people and industry experts that a young person could learn from by observing conversation and debate. It bears a great deal of resemblance to historic methods of learning by watching experts interact and debate. Tons of pedagogical value is here for a young person to latch onto.
A most obvious difference besides that is HN isn’t a nonstop feed of short form video appealing to the insecurities of teenagers, using notifications and social feedback loops and the suggestion that you’d be missing out on what your friends are up to if you left.
HN doesn’t even let you follow people and barely lets you know who they are. It’s centered on ideas, not people. HN and social media are almost nothing alike.
I loved Electrek early on. It was a fresh air reporting on everything renewable and EV. Now I consider it the whore of the news. Tesla could do no wrong five years ago. Now everything they touch is a disaster. That especially sucks because their cause is noble. HN’s sentiment toward Tesla has turned sour so Elektrek’s articles get upvoted more. Objectivity is overrated.
Tesla (and Elon) are responsible for bringing on the EV age, and forcing the trend on legacy manufacturers. Anyone who says otherwise is uninformed or dishonest.
That being said, their (one trick) pony has done it's trick, and now it's just promises that the pony will do progressively more crazy tricks if you just give it a little more time.
Just look at any headline they put out about Tesla. They phrase every article in the most negative light possible and mostly seem to report only negative events about the company.
>Tesla’s ‘Robotaxi’ expansion looks like another stock pump before earnings
>Tesla’s California sales crash 24% as state’s EV market plunges to lowest since 2021
>Tesla’s head of customer experience leaves for Coinbase as talent exodus grows
Even benign announcements are phrased in a negative light:
>Tesla launches ‘Robotaxi’ in Houston and Dallas with tiny geofences
Going out of their way to say the initial area for Dallas is “tiny”. You can imagine that a few years ago when they still liked Tesla they would have reported this story much differently.
>Tesla’s ‘Robotaxi’ expansion looks like another stock pump before earnings - I believe thats fair, they love doing this but Im willing to concede its negative.
>Tesla’s California sales crash 24% as state’s EV market plunges to lowest since 2021 -> Thats just a fact, it also mentions in the headline that the entire EV industry is down a lot in Cali so of course Tesla is heavily affected. If they wanted to just bash tesla it would have been trival to cut that out instead they provide context.
>Tesla’s head of customer experience leaves for Coinbase as talent exodus grows -> Both statements( head of customer experince leaves && talent exodus ). I guess you could make a argument that "talent exodus" is negative but is it not warranted? Its not a good look when a bunch of people leave your company at the same time.
>Tesla launches ‘Robotaxi’ in Houston and Dallas with tiny geofences - The initial area IS tiny it would not be a fair article if that was not highlighted, its just a few neighbors in some of the most sprawling cities in the US. The total area they are operating is in not even 10% of the city, its 30-35sq miles out of 340. The entire metro is ~9,000. That IS tiny especially if we compare it to its competitors that operate throughout entire cities.
What has Tesla done positively lately? Optimus is hardware that exist in many other companies paired with remote people controlling it, the cybertruck is a disaster, the semi has had no news of note, the robotaxi currently does not exist and requires software that has been promised for years and years without actually being delivered so its only fair to be skeptical of it.
I feel like you are intentionally ignoring my point, this ofc doesn't feel like a good faith discussion but I will engage anyway.
Bias comes in many forms. We can choose to not report things at all, we can choose to take neutral things and present them negatively, we can even take positive things and represent them as negatives, or we can choose to highlight negatives.
Elektrek is doing all of these.
Compare their coverage of Waymo's launch in Dallas to Tesla's. Their testing areas have very similar footprints, Waymo's is slightly larger but not by much.
Waymo's headline:
>Waymo adds 4 more cities to its robotaxi service, now 10 total (Tesla: still 0)
Tesla's headline:
>Tesla launches ‘Robotaxi’ in Houston and Dallas with tiny geofences
I mean if you cannot see the bias here then I would say you're just deliberately being bad faith.
One highlights Waymo's expansion as a positive while taking a deliberate swipe at Tesla, the other for some reason always puts "Robotaxi" in quotes and makes sure to emphasize how small it is directly in the headline.
6 months ago when Tesla launched robotaxi in Austin the service area was like twice as big as Waymo's, but do you think Elektrek reported it that way?
Reading this site really does remind me of Fox News.
If you want to see some positive things that Tesla is doing you can read other sites that actually publish that information.
>What has Tesla done positively lately?
Off the top of my head positives: the fact that they started production on the cybercab, the fact that they're rolling it out in all their testing locations and people have sighted it on the street, the fact that they started construction on the Optimus robot manufacturing plant which will have the capacity to make 10M robots per year.
>the semi has had no news of note
There is definitely news on the semi, it's just not being reported by people like Elektrek.
>California-based freight brokerage and asset-based carrier AiLO Logistics has launched a three-week operational pilot using the Tesla Semi truck.
>Tesla has said it has a few hundred Semis on the road with 13.5 million miles logged.
The fact that you believe they have only done negative/evil things indicates that likely the news you are reading about them has some significant slant to it.
Someone(s), somewhere, is paid "big bucks" to be in charge.
That's the person we should charge. If they cannot be charged for this kind of fuck-ups, then they should not be paid anything for simply rubber-stamping anything going over their desk. A simple machine could do their job.
If it’s related to compliance? Yeah I think that’s a pretty dangerous culture to have. Compliance requirements need owners who will ensure standards are met. If they don’t do their jobs, then they should face the consequences for the harm they allow.
Since when revenue is meaningless? It’s an indication of market acceptance. Anthropic has one of the most expensive plan, they didn’t undersell other models. Open weight models would otherwise dominate if cost is the only factor.
Also, investment is not money in the bank. They can’t withdraw $100b tomorrow. That means they don’t have to repay until after they got the investment, which is a commitment over several years.
Because at some point, you have to turn a profit. That's why people are wondering the margins, if their revenue is 30B but expenses are 60B with current investment repayment factor in, that means massive revenue increases or massive lowering of expenses are required to make the business profitable. What's the business impact if they do?
There are bad products and ones that are never used, just to paraphrase. Every single decision of any business gets derided by some segments of its users. You are free to call out Anthropic for anything you are unhappy about, and you are free to switch vendor, but calling them “good” or “bad” just shows your emotional immaturity, or bias.
Everyone is biased. You’re biased. It doesn’t invalidate your opinion, just like it doesn’t invalidate mine. There is no “objective truth” about the moral value or utility of Anthropic.
“You’re biased” in these contexts is often just a weak argument bordering on a personal attack. You’re attacking my credibility with no basis for it rather than arguing in favor of anthropic.
That's the lead in industrial robot installed. That lead is understandable because of manufacturing concentration in China. Here are 10 top robot makers, none of them are Chinese (*), and five are Japanese:
Imagine if it was owned by a government, such as China. What do you think would happen? Even if it was owned by US government, how much content do you think would get purged from the library when someone like Trump got elected? See what happened to NPR or PBS.
I'm aware of this policy. I cannot re-find the source, but there was an investigative piece somewhere that found they continued to take money from fossil-fuel aligned companies. I cannot find it after trying to look again admittably, though I am unsure if it because of my poor memory and that it didn't exist in the first place or because search engines are poor at this sort of thing. They do however continue to take ads from very high carbon industries like airlines and the such however.
They largely share my views, I am not suspicious because they don't align with my views, I am suspicious of all profit-motivated companies equally.
The point is that losing money isn't a sure sign that a business is doomed. Who knows where OpenAI will end up, but people still line up to invest. Those investors have billions reasons to be due diligent. Unlike what's claimed around here, most of investors aren't stupid. You yourself wouldn't be stupid either if money is at stake.
reply