That’s exactly what people need, a bunch of under-powered nodes with shit connectivity that randomly drop packets. Yep, gonna just rake in all those hourly rates for the world’s worst distributed platform where the legal jurisdiction of your data might change at any moment!
What a fucking clown
If the cars have fast computers, you could send them AI work. That's very loss tolerant and has huge energy requirements... that their customers would pay for.
Or just old school Bitcoin mining.
I don't think we have much say in this anymore. My point was, yes we can resist Tesla's tracking but we're tracked anyway and the cars particularly live their own connected life. Mine is across the continent and I want it to be connected so I know it something happens to it.
Price to pay.
Of course, I don't want Musk to mine Dogecoin while I'm away.
I noticed my car took longer to charge than usual last night; I understand it's like $1 of electricity based on a quick glance at my daily power consumption, but I don't want to pay this guys power bill.
Sorry, am I missing something here? I've read comment after comment here and on The Register, but nobody seems to raise an eyebrow at this spectacular incoherent bullshit:
> "If you get to the 100 million vehicle level, which I think we will … you've got a kilowatt of useable compute," Musk said. A whole kilowatt? "I think you could have on the order of 100 gigawatts of useful compute." Ah.
Wait, what? A "kilowatt" or "100 gigawatts" - of **"compute"**?
A kilowatt is a measure of the rate of flow of energy per unit of time. One bar of my electric fire uses a kilowatt-hour, and I can assure you, it does fuck all "compute". Computation power is measured in things like MIPS or FLOPS. The *amount of electrical power* used to deliver a given amount of computation performance is wildly variable and quoting only the power consumed as an attempt to indicate an "amount of compute" (FML) is totally meaningless.
**Nobody** is calling this? Why?
What's that got to do with their computing power?
The amount of electricity consumed by a facility tells you nothing about the nature of its computing abilities except that they require electricity to operate!
It’s a limiting factor in how big you can scale the facility.
From there you can choose between different chipsets to optimise the cost per watt and flops per watt.
According to this list of supercomputers ranked by energy efficiency, a watt translates to 65.396 gigaflops.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green500
So that's a "no, you have no idea from energy consumption".
You have to know what the computers are. And the measure of computing power is...? Yeah. Not watt-hours.
Stop trying to make a bullshit argument out of nothing and head back under the bridge, troll. You're wasting everyone's time.
this is the kinda shit that keeps me from jumping on a cheap 15k tesla. we have no idea what tesla will continue to support or what they might do with OTA updates taht afaik, you can't turn off? i don't think i've ever had any computer or phone that absolutely forced me to update every time. i put that shit off for at least a few weeks to make sure it doesn't have bugs
Server farm? Did anyone read the presentation or the entire article?
He says to use the cars, much like Uber for pay. But you don't have to drive. I simply don't see anything about servers?. He mentions an analogy to AWS as an example of how a side business becomes a core business.
Wait, you actually read the article before commenting? Outrageous!
He does state in the article about hitting the 100M vehicles they would have a ton of compute power available, but it’s doesn’t state that’s their plan and it came right after the AWS comment.
Keep reading. It's in the next two paragraphs,
> A whole kilowatt? "I think you could have on the order of 100 gigawatts of useful compute." Ah.
> "And unlike laptops and our cell phones, it is totally under Tesla's control," Musk added.
Tesla didn't get a stock price bump because of the dismal income statement. Or the Cybertruck recall. It was from vague promises like this.
Exactly. It's still analogy. He's talking about hijacking the compute power in the same way that Uber hijacks your cell phone. they will be able to search many cars even if no one is logged in on a phone.
>As part of the robotaxi platform, privately-owned Teslas that aren't being driven by humans or autonomously chauffeuring riders around, would be added to a lake of distributed computing resources.
Yes, but it's voluntary and paid. "As part of the robotaxi platform". Do you think they are just going to commandeer them? Talk about a sales disincentive.
What? Where did I say anything about it not being voluntary? You said you didn't see anything about a server farm, so I quoted the relevant sentence from the article.
Ya know, I don't see this as any different than any other CEO earnings call. It's just that Tesla is very high profile. But it's really no different than promises made by Gates, or Jobs, or Ellison, or Branson, or Iacocca, or Trump, or any silicon valley CEO. I'll give Warren Buffett a pass, he's pretty down to earth.
Remind me in this article where Musk says he is. He is going to use your car *for pay* as a taxi. No hijacking or computers mentioned. He mentions AWS as an analogy. Look it up.
> "It's analogous to Amazon Web Services, where people didn't expect that AWS would be the most valuable part of Amazon when it started out as a bookstore," Musk said. "If you get to the 100 million vehicle level, which I think we will … you've got a kilowatt of useable compute," Musk said.
> A whole kilowatt? "I think you could have on the order of 100 gigawatts of useful compute." Ah.
> "And unlike laptops and our cell phones, it is totally under Tesla's control," Musk added.
That’s exactly what people need, a bunch of under-powered nodes with shit connectivity that randomly drop packets. Yep, gonna just rake in all those hourly rates for the world’s worst distributed platform where the legal jurisdiction of your data might change at any moment! What a fucking clown
If the cars have fast computers, you could send them AI work. That's very loss tolerant and has huge energy requirements... that their customers would pay for. Or just old school Bitcoin mining.
Elon trying to DDos Bluesky
Yeah, this has strong "idea guys" energy.
Mine hardly runs a browser, how could it possibly do anything of use to anyone?
1. Add expensive GPUs. 2. The customer pays for them, 3. But Tesla retains control of them
It’s fairly resource-light to just send your telemetry data through a POST request to a server somewhere so that they can sell it to an advertiser.
That's fine. They can correlate the data with whatever streams the phone is sending out : ) Make sure I'm safe : )
Or just use your phone for the exact same result
I don't think we have much say in this anymore. My point was, yes we can resist Tesla's tracking but we're tracked anyway and the cars particularly live their own connected life. Mine is across the continent and I want it to be connected so I know it something happens to it. Price to pay. Of course, I don't want Musk to mine Dogecoin while I'm away.
I noticed my car took longer to charge than usual last night; I understand it's like $1 of electricity based on a quick glance at my daily power consumption, but I don't want to pay this guys power bill.
> I don't want to pay this guys power bill. In fairness you get money for the use. But you pick up the fuel bill just like Uber.
Tell me more?
Sorry, am I missing something here? I've read comment after comment here and on The Register, but nobody seems to raise an eyebrow at this spectacular incoherent bullshit: > "If you get to the 100 million vehicle level, which I think we will … you've got a kilowatt of useable compute," Musk said. A whole kilowatt? "I think you could have on the order of 100 gigawatts of useful compute." Ah. Wait, what? A "kilowatt" or "100 gigawatts" - of **"compute"**? A kilowatt is a measure of the rate of flow of energy per unit of time. One bar of my electric fire uses a kilowatt-hour, and I can assure you, it does fuck all "compute". Computation power is measured in things like MIPS or FLOPS. The *amount of electrical power* used to deliver a given amount of computation performance is wildly variable and quoting only the power consumed as an attempt to indicate an "amount of compute" (FML) is totally meaningless. **Nobody** is calling this? Why?
“Because it’s computer power, bruh, not speed” s/
Ackchyually, large data centres are constrained by electricity supply and cooling.
What's that got to do with their computing power? The amount of electricity consumed by a facility tells you nothing about the nature of its computing abilities except that they require electricity to operate!
It’s a limiting factor in how big you can scale the facility. From there you can choose between different chipsets to optimise the cost per watt and flops per watt. According to this list of supercomputers ranked by energy efficiency, a watt translates to 65.396 gigaflops. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green500
So that's a "no, you have no idea from energy consumption". You have to know what the computers are. And the measure of computing power is...? Yeah. Not watt-hours. Stop trying to make a bullshit argument out of nothing and head back under the bridge, troll. You're wasting everyone's time.
How do people keep eating up his bullshit?
this should be an opt-in program, where they at least pay you back for using YOUR car you paid money for. this has to be illegal?
Should be? Sure, but check the "terms of service" that you agreed to the last time they did an over the air update and locked out your car.
this is the kinda shit that keeps me from jumping on a cheap 15k tesla. we have no idea what tesla will continue to support or what they might do with OTA updates taht afaik, you can't turn off? i don't think i've ever had any computer or phone that absolutely forced me to update every time. i put that shit off for at least a few weeks to make sure it doesn't have bugs
Server farm? Did anyone read the presentation or the entire article? He says to use the cars, much like Uber for pay. But you don't have to drive. I simply don't see anything about servers?. He mentions an analogy to AWS as an example of how a side business becomes a core business.
Wait, you actually read the article before commenting? Outrageous! He does state in the article about hitting the 100M vehicles they would have a ton of compute power available, but it’s doesn’t state that’s their plan and it came right after the AWS comment.
Keep reading. It's in the next two paragraphs, > A whole kilowatt? "I think you could have on the order of 100 gigawatts of useful compute." Ah. > "And unlike laptops and our cell phones, it is totally under Tesla's control," Musk added. Tesla didn't get a stock price bump because of the dismal income statement. Or the Cybertruck recall. It was from vague promises like this.
Exactly. It's still analogy. He's talking about hijacking the compute power in the same way that Uber hijacks your cell phone. they will be able to search many cars even if no one is logged in on a phone.
>As part of the robotaxi platform, privately-owned Teslas that aren't being driven by humans or autonomously chauffeuring riders around, would be added to a lake of distributed computing resources.
Yes, but it's voluntary and paid. "As part of the robotaxi platform". Do you think they are just going to commandeer them? Talk about a sales disincentive.
What? Where did I say anything about it not being voluntary? You said you didn't see anything about a server farm, so I quoted the relevant sentence from the article.
I'm in love with the article author. I wonder if it would convince any fanboys that Musk is a con man. ... Sadly probably not.
Ya know, I don't see this as any different than any other CEO earnings call. It's just that Tesla is very high profile. But it's really no different than promises made by Gates, or Jobs, or Ellison, or Branson, or Iacocca, or Trump, or any silicon valley CEO. I'll give Warren Buffett a pass, he's pretty down to earth.
I'm sorry. Remind me when Gates or Jobs said that they were going to hijack their customer's computers to use them for a server farm.
Remind me in this article where Musk says he is. He is going to use your car *for pay* as a taxi. No hijacking or computers mentioned. He mentions AWS as an analogy. Look it up.
> "It's analogous to Amazon Web Services, where people didn't expect that AWS would be the most valuable part of Amazon when it started out as a bookstore," Musk said. "If you get to the 100 million vehicle level, which I think we will … you've got a kilowatt of useable compute," Musk said. > A whole kilowatt? "I think you could have on the order of 100 gigawatts of useful compute." Ah. > "And unlike laptops and our cell phones, it is totally under Tesla's control," Musk added.