Interesting Interview with Elon Musk

[markinnaples]

Interesting interview with Elon Musk. I may not agree with him on everything, but he seems to be stating the truth of what he sees and believes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrG6x-_4ZEo&authuser=1

[Lynn]

Wow. Wake up call for sure. I think he is right on. I have almost no confidence that anyone in power today can address the digital super-intelligence issue rationally.

These quotes really stood out to me.

“We have to figure out some way to insure that the advent of digital super-intelligence is one which is symbiotic with humanity. I think that’s the biggest existential crisis that we face the most pressing one.”

“… and mark my words, AI is far more dangerous than nukes.”

“I think the danger of AI is much greater than the danger of nuclear warheads by a lot.”

[RamAirBirds]

For years I have had a Love Hate Relationship with Elon.......Right now because of the necessary release of the "Twitter Files" I am currently in the LOVE part.

[Lynn]

I also think he is spot on about the deficit. You can't take in $4 Trillion and spend $7 Trillion ($3 Trillion deficit) year after year and NOT expect something to give. It is insane. Probably enough capital in this country to keep things going for my lifetime; maybe even my kids' (all over 40 now), but my grandchildren are screwed. If we don't reign in the spending, this country can, and most likely will, collapse. Politicians on BOTH sides of the isle are guilty. I hate being a doomsdayer. It burns me up that the wealthiest country on earth is hell bent on bankrupting itself.

[scuncio]

I am a big Elon fan, as the electric car business is also my bread and butter. I had a few opportunities to chat with him before Tesla became the behemoth it is. Very interesting and sharp dude to say the least.

[Charley Lillard]

I was surprised to find out he didn't come up with the Tesla car. Simply invested and bought the company.

[thehornworks]

He is The Einstein /Edison of our time. He thinks at a whole different level.

[70 copo]

I was surprised to find out he didn't come up with the Tesla car. Simply invested and bought the company.

Tesla was started from the Technology that GM abandoned with the demise of EV-1

[scuncio]

Tesla was started from the Technology that GM abandoned with the demise of EV-1

The original Tesla Roadster Propulsion system was largely based on AC Propulsion’s technology (San Dimas, CA). They were a few miles away from where I went to college and my roommate interned there one summer.

[scuncio]

I was surprised to find out he didn't come up with the Tesla car. Simply invested and bought the company.

Right, Martin Eberhard’s company.

[markinnaples]

I agree with much of what all of you have said, and a couple things that I truly appreciate that he spoke of in this interview were the following:

1. As mentioned above, the current spending is untenable (just like the border situation to me), and if we keep going ahead and spending money we don't have, we will end up broke and no longer the world leader in so much that we have been for the past 100+ years. And he's right about that $1.7 trillion budget that was just passed, and sadly, both sides voted for it. Who can be trusted to spend taxpayer money responsibly? Seems like very, very few people.

2. I've also heard him say several times over the past few years that one of the most significant challenges that will face man over the next generation going forward is the lack of population growth, which is in direct opposition to what people like Bill Gates and several others have said.

3. One of the things I like about EM is that he speaks so logically, and though we may not agree on a lot, at least he usually presents what logical argument he used to come up with his perspective.

[70 copo]

Right, Martin Eberhard’s company.

That's correct. The founders of TESLA were die hard EV-1 loyalists who petitioned GM to keep the car alive or at least allow then to keep the car but GM was still liability shy so they forced the owners to give them back under the provisions of the lease arrangement.

https://www.hagerty.com/media/car-profiles/ev1-may-have-been-first-demise-launched-tesla/


The founders of TESLA even organized the mock Funeral for EV-1 as well and begged GM to keep it.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-death-of-the-ev-1-118595941/

[70 copo]

Development flow summary that was uncovered during the Electric Camaro research by Pilot car registry:

Elecrovair/Electrovair 2
Electric Camaro Program
Shopper car Program
Lunar Rover Program
Mini car program

All of this developed into EV-1 then abandoned by GM

EV-1 technology then was used to launch TESLA

[scuncio]

When you say EV1 technology “launched” Tesla what exactly are you referring to?

[70 copo]

Multiple GM engineers have confirmed that the founders of TESLA copied abandoned GM technology to create the foundations of what would become TESLA.

Nobody at TESLA has denied it.

[Tenney]

I was surprised to find out he didn't come up with the Tesla car. Simply invested and bought the company.

Petersen 11/20/22 ...

[70 copo]

The styling resemblance to EV-1 is pretty obvious...

[Keith Seymore]

I also think he is spot on about the deficit. You can't take in $4 Trillion and spend $7 Trillion ($3 Trillion deficit) year after year and NOT expect something to give. It is insane.

My dad had this same observation regarding GM.

Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your perspective) he did not live long enough to see the company that provided our livelihood for two generations go under.

K

[70 copo]

GM always abandoned EV technology because they could not find a way to make money at it. For example GM GAVE the defense laboratory guys their own in house development data to start the mini car program that went private. It too failed on the finance end.

But TESLA survived... HOW? because Elon wanted it to. The company failed to make any profit until January 2020.

Very few companies can afford to run at a loss for a decade or better and stay in business.

[scuncio]

Multiple GM engineers have confirmed that the founders of TESLA copied abandoned GM technology to create the foundations of what would become TESLA.

Nobody at TESLA has denied it.

When you say "abandoned GM technology" are you referring to IP that is off patent?

This is one of the better essays on Tesla's history with AC Propulsion: https://www.autoweek.com/car-life/classic-cars/a35673804/tesla-before-it-was-tesla/

[70 copo]

When you say "abandoned GM technology" are you referring to IP that is off patent?

This is one of the better essays on Tesla's history with AC Propulsion: https://www.autoweek.com/car-life/classic-cars/a35673804/tesla-before-it-was-tesla/

Off patent? Yes.

Patent not defended? Absolutely.

Technology therefore abandoned? Definitely.

A parasitic business approach.

Here is a perfect example of GM's rationale. They did not want the mark (GM) associated with potential failure of any kind. EV-1 was a business failure. So like the GMRCE development (Wankel RX-7 engine) GM allowed others access to the technology to create conditions for the betterment of the technology sector.

Sometimes the technology access is part of the business strategic approach The LRV is a perfect example. Who developed and designed and tested the Lunar Rover? History tells you that it was Boeing. In reality, it was 99% GM. GM gave the credit to Boeing because as the GM team stated they were told at the time by management that if GM took the credit, and the LRV broke down and failed on the surface of the moon GM's reputation would be devastated. "FORD would have never let us forget it" The other excuse was that NASA wanted a zero G test facility constructed for pre launch certification and Boeing already had such a facility so GM decided to become the lead contractor to Boeing for these reasons.

GM has not really changed on one major way. They rarely openly lead in the technology sector because the safe approach is to act as a lead contractor or better yet let someone else develop the technology then GM moves in after the market is created and cashes in.

All kinds of examples here like GM giving the carburetor technology to Holley, letting Holley do all of the work to prefect it, and then taking the technology back and letting Rochester Products build it - nearly destroying Holley as a company in the process.

I have been pretty tough on GM over the EV issue. Not because I think that GM's technology will be substandard to TESLA, but to the contrary, I think GM's battery and drivetrains will likely be better because GM in this way is parasitic in its business approach -- in this case allowing TESLA to do all the heavy lifting to perfect it and create a viable market, now only to have GM sweep back in to attempt to literally take the market away from the patsy. This is how GM actually works, thinks.

I just believe that the average GM buyer will ultimately reject EV technology being forced upon them by GM. Therefore the approach being taken by Mary Barra is fraught with risk because it will be next to impossible to take TESLA buyers from TESLA at this point and the average GM buyer wants nothing to do with an EV.

The deep dive into the GM history on EV's is here directly from the men who did it first:

http://www.pilotcarregistry.com/60-s-gm-electric-car-program.html