So the link I posted was about proving Waymo truly can remote control them if needed even though they deny it, but I would be pretty surprised if Tesla said it wasn’t possible, because their car has the “summon” feature and literally any owner can remotely drive their car with a forward/back button. So regardless of if they do or don’t, they clearly can.

Ya, I don’t buy the hype around AGI. Like a Waymo drove into a telephone pole because of something they had to fix in their code. I’m not doubting there’s AI involved, neural nets, machine learning, whatever, but this isn’t an AGI type level development. Nor do I think they need an AGI to do this.

I’m also not convinced this LLM stuff can ever lead to AGI either. I think it can do some pretty impressive things with some very real drawbacks/caveats and there is definitely room to keep improving them, but that the whole architecture is flawed if you want to make an AGI.

I’m not fully up to speed on Waymo and if they have ever released remote assistance/ miles details, but when Cruise went through that shit storm a year or two ago, it came out that that the cars were asking for help every few miles.

Cruise was essentially all smoke and mirrors.

From the description it’s really not meant to solve that. In a situation like that they’d have to send someone, but they would be able to get out of the middle of a lane, off to the side, even if that only gives an extra foot or two of space to pass the vehicle.

Edit: And that’s assuming their remote helpers couldn’t direct the car to drive itself out using their other tool where the AI drives itself with their suggestions.

For future reference, here’s your proof its possible to be remotely moved, which means a hacker could exploit it.

https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/consumer-protection-and-enforcement-division/documents/tlab/av-programs/tcp0038152a-waymo-al-0003_a1b.pdf

In very limited circumstances such as to facilitate movement of the AV out of a freeway lane onto an adjacent shoulder, if possible, our Event Response agents are able to remotely move the Waymo AV under strict parameters, including at a very low speed over a very short distance.

(not op) Right here. It’s the only place they’ve ever admitted its possible.

https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/consumer-protection-and-enforcement-division/documents/tlab/av-programs/tcp0038152a-waymo-al-0003_a1b.pdf

In very limited circumstances such as to facilitate movement of the AV out of a freeway lane onto an adjacent shoulder, if possible, our Event Response agents are able to remotely move the Waymo AV under strict parameters, including at a very low speed over a very short distance.

For anyone that is curious, Waymo actually is capable of remote moving the vehicles despite what they say. They do their best not to admit it’s possible, but it’s right in the CPUC filings as a footnote, and probably the only place they’ll ever admit it.

https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/consumer-protection-and-enforcement-division/documents/tlab/av-programs/tcp0038152a-waymo-al-0003_a1b.pdf

In very limited circumstances such as to facilitate movement of the AV out of a freeway lane onto an adjacent shoulder, if possible, our Event Response agents are able to remotely move the Waymo AV under strict parameters, including at a very low speed over a very short distance.

I’m not opposed or knocking that they can do this, but they are lying to or misleading people when they say it can’t be done.

This is how it generally behaves, but they are capable of taking direct control in more difficult situations. It’s only very slow maneurvers though, it’s not like they would be driving it down the street. They could move it off the road onto the shoulder though if needed.

Edit: I am trying to find the source, but having problems. It was only ever mentioned in 1 official waymo document that I’ve seen that it was technically possible. My guess is they say their remote helpers can’t / don’t do it because they truly can’t, and it’s some highly restricted type of person who can, who isn’t classified like these other employees. The whole misleading but technical true kinda speak. I’ll keep looking though because I was really surprised to see them admit it when I saw it in an official document.

Found it

https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/consumer-protection-and-enforcement-division/documents/tlab/av-programs/tcp0038152a-waymo-al-0003_a1b.pdf

In very limited circumstances such as to facilitate movement of the AV out of a freeway lane onto an adjacent shoulder, if possible, our Event Response agents are able to remotely move the Waymo AV under strict parameters, including at a very low speed over a very short distance.

Looks like I was right as well on terminology, it’s not the remote operators that can do it, it’s the “Event Response” team that can.

As far as I know this is the only official acknowledgement it’s possible. Everywhere else they say it isn’t, and this is a footnote in that document.

They just stop moving when that happens. It’s been the cause of many traffic jams.

I didn’t know someone was trying a different approach like that, their animated graphics were really cool.

Eventually someone has gotta figure this out, I just hope I’m alive to see it and the outcome of it.

Just put the cpu by all the ports?

Ugh, that is bonkers.

The future is where ram is now a scarce item and everything comes with a easy pop in/out external ram slot and people are expected to move ram between devices.

It’d be like a SD card reader on laptop on all new hardware, but for ram.

There goes my hope that they had some rock solid contracts for many years of ram in place before prices were stupid.

I’m not a lawyer either, but I think you’re missing some aspect of intent that would be required to make it against the law.

Rivian for example was (is?) selling their cars at a negative gross margin because they couldn’t sell them for a profit for years. If you can’t sell something at a loss, so many businesses would be breaking the law when they start out, maybe legitimately almost every single business. (edit: your stance would make Rivian be forced to sell cars for prices no one would pay)

If the intent was to destroy another company by doing it, then that could fall under anti-competitive laws. In this case, the intent isn’t to destroy other hardware, it would be to help stabalize the ridiculous increase in prices knowing they could make it up in game sales.

Selling hardware at a loss when you make it up in subscriptions or sales in that ecosystem is incredibly common.

Sony is a prime example of doing this in the same market, they’ve sold generations of Playstations at an initial loss knowing games sale and subscriptions would make it up, and then eventually they start making a profit on the hardware as well.

That’s a really interesting idea to give preference to existing steam users with a legitimate history.

When they find my “old electronics” drawer, it’ll be a goldmine of ddr2/3 ram

I can’t imagine they would announce/launch something without having at least a couple years locked in.

Isn’t that what BigScreen mode essentially is? Never actually seen the actual OS.

BigScreen mode even lets you sleep the computer from within it, and when you turn it back on, you’re already in it.