X/Twitter has its own data centers, this is for physical equipment under X’s control. They need to get a judgment (which the article indicates they’re working on) before they can do anything. Presumably after months to years of litigation they can then repossess the servers, but then X would probably at the last minute pay the bill.
Musk has said that humans drive with only eyesight, so cars should be able to drive with just cameras.
This of course assumes 1) that cameras are just as good as eyes (they’re not) and 2) that the processing of visual data that the human brain does can be replicated by a machine, which seems highly dubious given that we only partially understand how humans process visual data to make decisions.
Finally, it assumes that the current rate of human-caused crashes is acceptable. Which it isn’t. We tolerate crashes because we can’t improve people without unrealistic expense. In an automated system, if a bit of additional hardware can significantly reduce crashes it’s irrational not to do it.
Whenever I see these articles, I feel like it’s part of OpenAI’s marketing strategy to use the fear-based media to pump up the sense of how revolutionary their tech is. Kinda like how they marketed GPT-4o by openly tying it in to the movie Her, as if ChatGPT is gonna replace relationships. They’re clearly very aware of what gets attention and going for that.
True but if Tesla keeps acting like they’re on the verge of an unsupervised, steering wheel-free system…this is more evidence that they’re not. I doubt we’ll see a cybercab with no controls for the next 10 years if the current tech is still ignoring large, highly predictable objects in the road.