patrick.net

He's right: summoning demons.

It will be the biggest technological change ever.

Take for example medicine: this field represents so much data, so much information ranging from chemistry, to mechanics, it's almost impossible for 1 human to understand what's going on in the body.

AI will do it easily. Large progress in medicine will predictably follow AI, because it will be able to animate huge amounts of knowledge.

This is not the only field however. Imagine the NSA surveillance times 10. Or swarms of drones attacking a country.

It's coming.

Yes we need to regulate it, that will fix it.

justme says

Elon Musk needs a lot of AI to counteract all his dumb ideas.

Right? I mean the moron is only worth 11 billion with one of the hottest new companies on the planet. What an idiot!

rooemoore says

justme says

Elon Musk needs a lot of AI to counteract all his dumb ideas.

Right? I mean the moron is only worth 11 billion with one of the hottest new companies on the planet. What an idiot!

Elon Musk is indeed an idiot. Here's what's wrong with his ideas:

1. Musk's Tesla model S electric car is a car that emits as much CO2 as a 35mpg gasoline car, when assumed it is run on US average grid mix. In reality it emits more, because it runs on incremental grid mix which is all fossile fuel (coal and natgas). Driving a Toyota Prius that gets 50mpg is MUCH better than driving a Tesla.

Not only that, but for the cost of each Tesla you could buy 3 Toyota Prius cars that get 50mpg, give 2 of them to people that drive 15mpg pick-up trucks or SUVs, and really make a dent both in fossile fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.

2. Musk then uses proceeds from selling stock in Tesla (dumb idea #1) to bankroll an even dumber idea #2: Space-X. Space-X shoots rockets into space using massive amounts of energy. I don't have the exact numbers for Space-X, at least not handy, but Wikipedia says a space shuttle launch expends 20 TJ of energy. That amount of energy is the equivalent of the energy required to run 790 Toyota Prius for 10,000 miles each.

20e12/34.2e6/3.7*50/10000
790.263948158685

Yes, you can run 790 Toyota Prius for a Year (10k miles) for the same amount of energy used to send one space shuttle into orbit. So when Space-X is marketing and enabling space tourism to vain billionaires, I think that is a very BAD and very STUPID idea.

QED. Elon Musk is dangerously stupid.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transportation#Rockets

justme says

Elon Musk is indeed an idiot.

He's not an idiot, he's just a bit disingenuous.

The Tesla is simply another luxury car brand, not too distinct from a Maserati or a Lamborghini. And the latter aren't fuel efficient either.

As for SpaceX, it's basically the private sector's answer to NASA, dropping the ball on replacing the shuttle program with old fashion rockets, to get satellites, commercial and military, into orbit. And thus, SpaceX's exit strategy is to be a defense contractor, something every company hopes for, as it's the best way to insure a long term revenue stream.

And then, getting folks like Larry Ellison or George Lucas into space, is mainly for PR and advertising.

justme says

Elon Musk is indeed an idiot. Here's what's wrong with his ideas:

I thought you would mention the Hyperloop.

He's probably not stupid, but being worth $11 billion is certainly not a protection against bad ideas.

However he's right about AI.

justme says

1. Musk's Tesla model S electric car is a car that emits as much CO2 as a 35mpg gasoline car, when assumed it is run on US average grid mix. In reality it emits more, because it runs on incremental grid mix which is all fossile fuel (coal and natgas). Driving a Toyota Prius that gets 50mpg is MUCH better than driving a Tesla.

Unless, of course, you recharge at one of these:
http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger

the question is, is he smart with or without cronyism?

justme says

Not only that, but for the cost of each Tesla you could buy 3 Toyota Prius cars that get 50mpg, give 2 of them to people that drive 15mpg pick-up trucks or SUVs, and really make a dent both in fossile fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.

Or this:
http://www.engadget.com/2014/07/15/tesla-model-iii/

indigenous says

the question is, is he smart with or without cronyism?

Since every successful capitalist on the planet benefits from cronyism the answer is "who cares?".

rooemoore says

Since every successful capitalist on the planet benefits from cronyism the answer is "who cares?".

The Fuck they do

Rin says

The Tesla is simply another luxury car brand, not too distinct from a Maserati or a Lamborghini. And the latter aren't fuel efficient either

At least Maserati has great engine sound.

http://www.caranddriver.com/news/a-revving-maserati-engine-has-a-biological-effect-on-women-car-news

It turns women on!

Peter P says

At least Maserati has great engine sound.

http://www.caranddriver.com/news/a-revving-maserati-engine-has-a-biological-effect-on-women-car-news

It turns women on!

The thing is that Tesla's got true *silent running* capabilities.

So perhaps a good way to make it appear more like a traditional muscle car is to add a vibrating gyroscope, some sound samples from other vehicles in an mp3 player, and use a feedback loop from the accelerator, to increase the sounds' amplitudes on the mp3 player.

But then, when you're on the run from the cops, you just turn off the vibrator and mp3 player.

Rin says

The thing is that Tesla's got true *silent running* capabilities.

I am too scared to drive around with so much lithium. Then again gasoline is not much safer.

I may get a diesel car next.

indigenous says

rooemoore says

Since every successful capitalist on the planet benefits from cronyism the answer is "who cares?".

The Fuck they do

Let me qualify that -- I'm not talking mom & pop type capitalists -- I'm speaking of the club of which Musk currently resides. My point is that if you are successful enough to use your money via lobbying/bribery to get favors, you do.

I realize "successful capitalist" was too vague.

rooemoore says

Unless, of course, you recharge at one of these:

http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger

Makes no difference whatsoever. Tesla model S is still at best a 35 mpg-equivalent car, and for the most part quite a bit less than 35 mpg.

I suspect you do not possess the knowledge to understand why this is the case, but if you are interested you can always search on patrick.net for the answer.

Rin says

The Tesla is simply another luxury car brand, not too distinct from a Maserati or a Lamborghini. And the latter aren't fuel efficient either.

True, Tesla is better than a BMW 740 or equivalent [addendum: because 35mpg (actually less but ...) versus 22mpg]

But the problem is that most people think that Tesla is a solution to our dependency on fossile fuel and our CO2 emissions. It clearly is not, but 99% of the population are incapable of even understanding why this is the case. It is a very dangerous delusion that will come back and bite us HARD after another 20 years of believing that Tesla will solve our energy and CO2 problems, when in fact it does nothing of the sort.

rooemoore says

Or this:

http://www.engadget.com/2014/07/15/tesla-model-iii/

You just don't get it. Three Prius that are 50mpg is still 42% better than Three Tesla Model III at 35 mpg in fossile consumption and CO2 emissions.

justme says

True, Tesla is better than a BMW 740 or equivalent

How so?

Peter P says

justme says

True, Tesla is better than a BMW 740 or equivalent

How so?

Need you ask? In the only way that matters: BMW 740i 2013 model gets 22 mpg.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33094

justme says

Peter P says

justme says

True, Tesla is better than a BMW 740 or equivalent

How so?

Need you ask? In the only way that matters: BMW 740i 2013 model gets 22 mpg.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33094

Gas is cheap in America.

justme, Always appreciate your perspective, but I don't understand how you move your transportation infrastructure towards renewables using fossil fuels. Or maybe your answer is "You don't, you just use those fossil resources more efficiently, augmented by renewable drop in replacements (biodiesel, biomethane, ethanol)". And then at some point, you make the great leap forward to the "sustainable alternative" (when the grid goes renewable, or solar/wind make H2 generation feasible, or...).

EBGuy says

justme, Always appreciate your perspective, but I don't understand how you move your transportation infrastructure towards renewables using fossil fuels.

Thanks! I'm trying my best.

Let me try to answer: Using fossile fuel is what Tesla is doing! Any incremental increase in demand from electric cars can currently only be met by burning coal and natgas in the electrical power plants , because there is not enough clean power to meet even non-vehicle electrical demand. If there was, we would not need coal and natgas plants in the first place.

So the BEST(*) approach is to expand the supply of green electricity as fast as is practical and economical, decommission coal plants (first) and natgas (second), and when the grid mix CO2/kWh is low enough that adding electric cars causes lower total fossile consumption and CO2 emission than using the the most efficient hybrid-gasoline (and even better, hybrid-diesel) cars, then start phasing in the pure electric cars.

(*) BEST is defined as lowest TOTAL fossile consumption and CO2 emission for both household/industrial consumption and transportation consumption of energy, be it electrical or direct burning of fossile fuels (gas, oil, coal, tar sand).

Here's the point: We are nowhere near the green electrical supply point where incremental substitution of electrical cars for the most efficient hybrids will result in a net reduction in fossile fuel consumption and CO2 emission.

Now, I think you are hinting at a commonly seen argument that we need companies such as Tesla NOW because their battery technology will save us in the future. This is not a valid argument. What we need is lots and lots (millions per year) of 50+ mpg hybrid cars, and such demand will create much better battery technology than 28,000 (or whatever) Teslas, while at the same time reducing our total fossile fuel consumption and CO2 emission by a lot relative to the same scenario based on Teslas instead of hybrids. Don't forget that each Tesla you put on the road uses 42% more fossile fuel than a Prius or similar hybrid, and that is with average grid mix. The correct accounting is to charge the Tesla with incremental supply based on coal and natgas, which is much worse than the average, so the real figure is considerably higher than 42%.

justme says

Tesla is better than a BMW 740

Nothing is better than a BMW 740, except a BMW 750. Bmw is for people who want to drive, everything else is for people who need to drive.

Oh sure you can buy very cool and fun automotive toys like the ones with horses or spears on the hood, but I'm talking about taking the kids to school or a quick trip with 3 other people Boston to NY cars.

bob2356 says

Nothing is better than a BMW 740, except a BMW 750. Bmw is for people who want to drive, everything else is for people who need to drive.

My stepdad's X5 was a terrible POS. Things went wrong on it that should NEVER go wrong on a modern car. Things like the door seals degrading twice, window regulators breaking, electric latches failing. When I drove it I just found it heavy and lumbering like all SUVs. Even my original Jeep Cherokee was more limber than the X5. He finally traded it in (at a huge loss) for a FIAT because he wanted something more reliable.

Other people I've known with BMWs also had expensive mechanical problems too.

justme says

rooemoore says

Unless, of course, you recharge at one of these:

http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger

Makes no difference whatsoever. Tesla model S is still at best a 35 mpg-equivalent car, and for the most part quite a bit less than 35 mpg.

I suspect you do not possess the knowledge to understand why this is the case, but if you are interested you can always search on patrick.net for the answer.

So you are saying I can possess knowledge by searching on Patrick.net? That's pretty funny.

How can a car that runs completely on solar power emit more CO2 than a hybrid?

BTW, I do understand your point about pure electric being less efficient than hybrid. In the USA this varies based on location and time of year. And because it is a small company, the fact that it is not as efficient as a hybrid in some cases, really has a miniscule environmental impact.

But Tesla is showing clearly that with the right commitment to renewable energy production, our need for fossil fuels can be reduced dramatically despite what the oil consortium would like us to believe.

Anyway, Musk's plans are to get homes off the grid. The car is just a way to get noticed and get funding for the battery factory.

bob2356 says

Bmw is for people who want to drive, everything else is for people who need to drive.

BMW is pretty good as a leased car. Somehow the way they setup everything makes the numbers extremely compelling. It is cheaper to lease a BMW than a comparable Volvo. I have done the math. (I really prefer Volvo though.)

Lease payment is a better indicator of the true ownership cost.

BTW, do you really want to own an out-of-warranty European car? Our used Lexus lasted 10+ years.

Just give me the self-driving car now! Who cares about whether the car runs on renewable energy?

rooemoore says

So you are saying I can possess knowledge by searching on Patrick.net? That's pretty funny.

I caved in and already gave the answer, above, in the long post that talks about the total fossile consumption and CO2 emission. I do get tired of answering the same questions over and over again, hence I tell you to search my earlier posts.

rooemoore says

How can a car that runs completely on solar power emit more CO2 than a hybrid?

Well, it appears that you did not understand my aforementioned explanation. I'll try to simplify. The question to ask is the following: Which has lower total fossile consumption and CO2 emisson of the following two scenarios:

A. Solar panels feeding a Tesla model S, no grid electricity used

B. Same solar panels feeding the grid, with coal or natgas plants dialled down accordingly, and driving a Prius on gasoline.

The correct answer is B, by a >42% margin. You really have to think hard about this. The above A/B example is the "microeconomic" picture of the energy economics of fossile consumption and CO2 emission with respect to vehicle choice.

Any talk about solar panels on YOUR roof, time-of-year, where you live, how green the power is in your zipcode and other blah-blah is just red herring and false arguments. Understand the big picture.

Next time will you please search patrick.net?

Peter P says

Just give me the self-driving car now! Who cares about whether the car runs on renewable energy?

Yes, this would make going out drinking, a lot easier.

Rin says

Peter P says

Just give me the self-driving car now! Who cares about whether the car runs on renewable energy?

Yes, this would make going out drinking, a lot easier.

Also, cars can become windowless, allowing way more privacy. ;-)

Peter P says

Rin says

Peter P says

Just give me the self-driving car now! Who cares about whether the car runs on renewable energy?

Yes, this would make going out drinking, a lot easier.

Also, cars can become windowless, allowing way more privacy.

Yes, there was a vampire movie where they went out during the day with windowless cars and cameras were streaming the outside view footage onto screens in the car.

Screw him and his electric cars. Here is my ride:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/iYol7m3WjGQ

LOL. The Tesla S has pretty good performance though.

What A.I. will do is allow me to finally have a gal, who looks like Raquel, but won't take me to the cleaners.

And playing an annual software updating license isn't highway robbery.

Rin says

What A.I. will do is allow me to...

Perhaps an A.I. lucid dreaming device?

Peter P says

Rin says

What A.I. will do is allow me to...

Perhaps an A.I. lucid dreaming device?

Yes, a good idea.

Imagine coming back home from work, Raquel opens the door, takes your coat, offers you a glass of Bourbon, gets down on her knees and starts to deep throat you. Then, the mp3 player turns on, Metallica's "Call of the Ktulu" is playing, you sip away enjoying the sensations and sounds.

I was happier when I thought Elon Musk was a perfume.

Lucid wet dreams are superior to A.I. sex bots because there is less to clean.

Peter P says

Lucid wet dreams are superior to A.I. sex bots because there is less to clean.

Considering that I had one with Billie Piper, I can honestly say yes, it was awesome.

Still, physiologically speaking, the body does need to boink in physical reality and thus, an A.I. 'bot will do the trick, sorry, make that many tricks :-)