Tesla has always invested heavily in their software. Just because it has always been shitty doesn’t diminish that it was an outsized part of their business model, especially compared to other car companies
Why must tech company and car company be mutually exclusive? Certainly the amount of technology (including ML) present in cars has increased exponentially in the last decade.
I suppose I define AI company differently than you do. In my mind if a company is investing a large chunk of its operations in developing AI, it is an AI company.
By your logic tesla is also a logistics company (shipping cars), an industrial manufacturer of plant machinery (the machines to build the cars), a battery company (buying and investing in battery technology).
what do you call tesla? “An automotive, AI, logistics, industrial plant manufacturing, battery company”?
I would absolutely call Tesla a battery company. Would you not? They’ve invested a huge amount in battery R&D and sell them direct to consumers as well as use them in their cars. The rest of that stuff isn’t something they invested heavily in developing, ie. they didn’t invest R&D in developing new logistics technology for shipping cars.
Any company that invests money into something is suddenly also part of that entire industry and they can label themselves whatever they please. Gotcha.
The supermarket I used to work for is now a software company, as they build software in house
The insurance company I used to work for is now an AI company, as we internally developed and used machine learning models.
If a company invests a large chunk of its money in tech, particularly tech R&D, I’d describe it as a tech company. I don’t view that term as mutually exclusive with other things such as automotive manufacturing. To me this is as silly as someone saying “Apple is a phone manufacturer company, not a tech company” or “Amazon is a cloud service provider, not a video streaming company”. Companies can be more than one thing.
Again, none of what I’m saying is predicated on that tech being any good. I am well aware Tesla’s software is often dogshit. I’m just talking in terms of where they direct their efforts.
You could do that. But you’d be in the minority of people when you do, and it makes it very hard to communicate when two people are in disagreement in terms.
It doesn’t make it hard to communicate if they’ve clarified their meaning multiple times, unless the other people are intentionally not understanding what they say.
What AI products, except their broken self driving feature, does tesla sell?
Is every other manufacturer of cars with any self driving type functionality now an “AI” company to you?
Tesla has always invested heavily in their software. Just because it has always been shitty doesn’t diminish that it was an outsized part of their business model, especially compared to other car companies
So wait, are you now saying they are a technology company? Can you please try and keep your mental gymnastics consistent?
Are you implying all car manufacturers are now AI or Technology companies? And are no longer automotive manufacturers?
exactly. if you own a hammer, youre a construction firm, apparently.
Why must tech company and car company be mutually exclusive? Certainly the amount of technology (including ML) present in cars has increased exponentially in the last decade.
Because they do not produce and sell independent AI technology
I suppose I define AI company differently than you do. In my mind if a company is investing a large chunk of its operations in developing AI, it is an AI company.
By your logic tesla is also a logistics company (shipping cars), an industrial manufacturer of plant machinery (the machines to build the cars), a battery company (buying and investing in battery technology).
what do you call tesla? “An automotive, AI, logistics, industrial plant manufacturing, battery company”?
I would absolutely call Tesla a battery company. Would you not? They’ve invested a huge amount in battery R&D and sell them direct to consumers as well as use them in their cars. The rest of that stuff isn’t something they invested heavily in developing, ie. they didn’t invest R&D in developing new logistics technology for shipping cars.
Any company that invests money into something is suddenly also part of that entire industry and they can label themselves whatever they please. Gotcha.
The supermarket I used to work for is now a software company, as they build software in house
The insurance company I used to work for is now an AI company, as we internally developed and used machine learning models.
TIL the company I work at is an AI company since we develop software
Do they develop ML software, models, or algorithms?
by your own definition (implements custom ML), BMW, AUDI, etc are all now AI companies. as well has thousands of analytic firms.
a ceo is hyping a tool, and its not even fucking AI.
If a company invests a large chunk of its money in tech, particularly tech R&D, I’d describe it as a tech company. I don’t view that term as mutually exclusive with other things such as automotive manufacturing. To me this is as silly as someone saying “Apple is a phone manufacturer company, not a tech company” or “Amazon is a cloud service provider, not a video streaming company”. Companies can be more than one thing.
Again, none of what I’m saying is predicated on that tech being any good. I am well aware Tesla’s software is often dogshit. I’m just talking in terms of where they direct their efforts.
You could do that. But you’d be in the minority of people when you do, and it makes it very hard to communicate when two people are in disagreement in terms.
It doesn’t make it hard to communicate if they’ve clarified their meaning multiple times, unless the other people are intentionally not understanding what they say.
If Musk said the sky is blue, and you agreed with that on Lemmy, then you’d be downvoted.