Asimo was crazy for it’s time, it’s weird to think how long ago that was. The big difference is that asimo ran on preprogrammed maps while Tesla’s proposed bot will not need them. Asimo had some similar things with object detection but it was nowhere near as advanced as the occupancy network Tesla uses.

Generalized equipment is almost always cheaper to produce at scale. It’s certainly cheaper with a product like Optimus where the main selling point is the software. You don’t need multiple teams focusing on several different product lines. Maintenance is simplified and issues become much easier to identify and fix.

I think you should also consider that Optimus is running off of the same software as Tesla’s vehicles. They’ve already poured excessive amounts of money into R&D. They definitely need to have a crack team of engineers; like you’ve already noted, the actuation needs work. But even still, a functioning prototype put together in less than a year is absolutely wild for this level of robotics.

I remember Baxter! I haven’t seen anything on that in years, I’ll have to see what that company is up to because Baxter is exactly the same idea as Optimus. I’m curious if they’ve already rolled out to manufacturers. I first remember hearing about Baxter like ten years ago, I’m sure they made plenty of improvements since I last saw it. They would actually have a massive lead time over Tesla, if they have the manufacturing process nailed down and could partner with a group like nvidia for AI, they could likely capture a big portion of that market years before Tesla has anything ready.

I don’t know of them, I’ll look it up! EVs allowed new companies to enter an old market, I bet robotics will be the same!

It’s definitely a really cool time to be alive!

That’s a really good question! It’s super hard to predict technology because advancements are rarely linear. We might find that the jump from 3 to 4 is relatively simple or maybe it takes decades of work before we can do it! I personally think that it’s likely to come very quickly, maybe even the next ten years.

Surprisingly, it doesn’t take a supercomputer to drive a car, I think the biggest limitation is not the chips but the sensors. For example, radar provides a good view of the world but stops working in rain or fog. Cameras are great until it hits inclement weather. LiDAR makes perfect 3d maps but it’s performance suffers at night or in cloudy weather.

Most companies are combining multiple sensors to combat their weaknesses but Tesla seems committed to using only cameras. I don’t know if multiple sensors will be required or if Tesla is right in trying to copy the way humans drive. So far, Tesla seems to have a lead but they’ve also spent more time working in this than anyone else. We’ll see if the camera only approach is enough for level 4, I’m a little skeptical.

They are fixed on FSD beta, same as the auto headlights. I imagine you’ll see that roll out when they make everything single stack, I suspect that will be the Christmas update but who knows.

You would be 100% correct if Tesla was attempting autonomous driving in the traditional way with mapping and specific route planning. But Tesla is not doing that at all, they actually have decreased the vehicles confidence in basic map data over the last few updates because they want the vehicle to process what it sees, not what it expects. This is why when they addressed Chuck Cook’s left turn it vastly improved unprotected turns for everyone, not just that one single instance. For that same reason, a closed loop isn’t a great way to measure the vehicle’s performance because they’re not training it for any specific routes. It makes their progress look much slower but in the end it will be able to adapt to changing road conditions, construction, new roads, etc. without needing to be pre-mapped. That said, I don’t think we’ll be seeing level 5 without different camera placement, I’ll be curious to see if HW4 makes that change.

I have to disagree! The robot we saw was slapped together in less than a year, that’s massive progress already! But the construction of the robot isn’t why I think it’s feasible, it’s the approach.

For a long time we’ve made very specific robots with very specific tasks. They cost a fortune but they do their job well. Tesla is going a different direction and saying “why make a specific robot when we can make a general one?” Optimus wouldn’t even require changes to the factory floor because it’s designed to mimic human movements. They’ll be able to mass produce it, equipment it with software that allows it to visualize its environment, and train it to do a wide array of human tasks.

I do like the comparison of an iron bar to a car frame because it’s a long ways off still but the bones are there and the approach seems right to me. Boston Dynamics knows how to make a robot but they don’t know how to make a robot that understands and interacts with its environment. That is going to be absolutely essential for any sort of mass production of humanoid robots.

I completely agree that level 5 autonomy (and even level 4 most likely) are still a long ways off but level 3 is right around the corner. If they geofenced the current FSD Beta to avoid unprotected turns and thin roads, it would be 99% of the way there. The layoffs you’re referencing were actually a very positive sign that Tesla has made major advancements; the majority of those laid off were part of the data labeling team and Tesla was able to implement an autolabeling system that did their job with AI. I am very interested in the impact that moving 50 AP engineers to Twitter is going to have. It seems like an insanely dumb move to me but I have no idea what’s going on behind the scenes.

I hope autonomous vehicles are closer than you think! But technology rarely follows a linear path, all we can do is speculate and dream.

Honestly, yes. Politicians on both sides are failing to understand that autonomy is on the horizon and that there’s a very real potential of mass unemployment over the next few decades. I lean conservative but it seems to me that we need to have some sort of universal income, likely paid by a tax on companies that automate their businesses. When people don’t work a combination of financial stress and boredom could quickly lead to civil unrest.

So far Tesla is the only company I’ve seen with a prototype that looks feasible. Boston Dynamics can do some incredible things with robots but they have to program every movement and the videos we see often take many, many shots. Tesla also has a lot of vector mapping knowledge to borrow from the FSD team. A single model that can learn different tasks will be infinitely better than a wide array that needs very specific programming.

There will likely be many other companies attempting this in the near future so it’s tough to say but Tesla has a strong reputation for developing ground breaking technology. Don’t let Elon’s overestimated timelines fool you, Tesla’s AI team is one of the best in the world.

Interesting! What makes you feel AST will be stronger in this space than SpaceX? Are they launching their own rockets?

Love to hear it! I’m not surprised SpaceX had that in mind given their moonshot goals.

I honestly hate Musk but I won’t deny how successful his companies have been. Either he’s excellent at creating drive or he knows how to hire great people. I can’t stand the dude but I love my Tesla and I see big things for Starlink in the future.

What’s wild to me is that Bezos definitely had better access to capital than Musk, what went wrong for BO? They can hire the best engineers in the world and are still struggling.

We need some global regulatory authority on space launches. Billionaires being able to fill the sky with satellites is very concerning when you consider the dangers of space junk trapping us here.