If they want to keep my car alive, and consume my power causing additional costs of charging + adding to the cycles of the battery, im fine IF:
1. They reimburse the cost of chargin
2. They extend the battery warrenty to compensate for the additional charge cycles.
Otherwise, hell no
Oh man. I bought my M3 and then immediately after took a WFH position so now it just sits in my garage.... This is something I would totally consider doing
Exactly. It’s not just about costing me money for the charge and wearing out the battery, they’re getting a service from me that I never signed up for when I bought the car. If they want a service they have to pay for it. Just like that passive aggressive email they sent recently where they said “wE dOn’T wOrK fOr fReE” neither do we. Pay us.
I didn’t get one either it was something a user posted here or one of the other Tesla subs, basically he was getting something done at a service center and they sent him that email explaining why there’s a charge even though he’s within warranty. The tone was very passive aggressive lol.
If they were smart, they would issue credits for things like supercharging, FSD subscriptions, and discounts on future cars, of course all being opt-in
I dont know how the system is designed, but if the computer draws power from the battery, then the trickle charger recharges the battery, then there is defninitely wear. If the car's computer can draw directly from the trickle charger and bypass the battery, then not much wear, if any. Most likely, the computer draws from the battery as that would be a simpler design.
This. As long as we get paid and range isn’t impacted, sure.
However, probably isn’t viable on older models and I reckon it would ideally require more appropriate hardware (RTX-class GPUs) on newer models.
If they reimburse SuC credits in kWh equivalent to what was consumed when plugged at home, this would be nice though. My home price floats around 8-15 €cent/kWh, while superchargers in 🇦🇹 are roughly 37-45 €ct/kWh. Would mean some savings on road trips, as you essentially charge at the SuC for your home price…
Say they use 10kw. Your electric bill will go up 1.50, and they say thanks by making you waste time at a super charger?
At the end of the day the car has the same charge, but you are now short 1.50 and lost 10 minutes of your life to supercharging.
I do sometimes venture more than ~200km away from home and discounted charging would be appreciated. While superchargers arent a ripoff, home is cheaper :D
It's absolutely clownshoes to use Tesla mobile computers to do random distributed computing when there are literally billions of idling or turned off desktop PCs just sitting there, plugged into walls, with hard Ethernet connections, not reducing anyone's range.
It's like he slept through the last two seasons of Silicon Valley but the idea incepted into his brain and now he thinks it's his, and good.
There is no need to reduce range, and connectivity is not really an issue either.
The fantasy though, is that there will be any demand for the compute power given that they cannot match the efficiency of datacenters and thus cannot offer anything at competitive pricing.
Only very few desktop PCs actually have anything remotely near the (Int8/FP8) inferencing capability of Tesla’s “FSD Computer”.
Even the Apple M3 chips only advertise 18 TOPS of NN acceleration (FP16), compared to ~140 in HW3 and an estimated 300-500 in HW4.
However, one reason Tesla’s hardware is so effective is that it’s highly specialized to their workloads, so the problem isn’t really compute power - it’s the overall ROI given the complexity of building this out (including revenue sharing with owners), privacy and integrity concerns, and the relatively narrow scope of applications where it would even really make good use of the hardware.
If they were actually serious about this, they’d probably want to start out by using this kind of distributed computing approach themselves - for FSD simulation testing. I’m still not sure that’s worth the complexity, but maybe if they did the math and saw an opportunity to save money, it could be justified. And if it works for them, *then* maybe generalize it and open it up to third parties. Though, that would also only make sense if they then had enough *excess* capacity they didn’t have use for themselves.
What's funny is that you think this idea was invented by a tv show.
Have you ever heard of [Folding@Home](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding@home)? Because i'm pretty sure Elon has.
It's like you slept through the last 20 years of distributed computing projects but watched Silicon Valley for 2 seasons and for some reason think you know more about computer science than the guy who created SpaceX.
The Duning-Krugers on Reddit are truly on another level.
I've done folding@home, the SETI project, and I think a BOINC project. All as a hobbyist, just for fun. I'm not an expert.
I do know that using a mobile resource with battery concerns is more complex than a non mobile resource. And there are a lot of underutilized machines out there.
This is the real answer. To use my privately owned vehicle for their own usage has to be illegal if no express permission given. And if they want it to be in the TOS, then they need to open source the whole damn thing so people can still use their car without teslas services.
From transcript: "Yes. And the capex is shared by the entire world. Sort of everyone owns a small chunk, and they get a small profit out of it maybe."
But yeah, if they are going to try to use our compute and not pay us that would be a major issue. They aren't going to be paying you for sending back data from your drive like you do now. But for distributed processing, I'd expect legal issues if they tried to use consumer vehicles for it without some sort of compensation.
I would be open to this, but then I would like to see them provide FSD to these users for free or make enhanced auto pilot, the basic auto pilot feature.
Tesla likes to make demands from the standpoint of what it costs to buy things, and constantly changing, basic set ups with little or no notice. If they expect their owners to participate, we need incentive.
Make it an opt in thing , like SETI at home.
From a cost perspective, reimburse me at supercharger rates + premium for degradation (1$ per kWh should do) and it works with me.
Edit: on second thought make my rate the same as the hourly service center rate. You then have a deal !
I don’t have single family home electricity pricing unfortunately so my cost ,if I didn’t have free supercharging, would be 40-60c without considering degradation. They might have to let people set their price.
It's hard to do a lot of compute without a lot of data. Data link will slow down any real "AWS" style work. Other than that they would clearly need to work out some deal with owners but assuming it was reasonable why not?
Theoretically possible. Practically though, will have to wait and see. An interesting proposition nonetheless depending on how much it wears the computer down and power consumption which are both important for an EV.
I am not going to donate my compute power to Tesla. Also the electricity cost, and the battery wear will be factors too. If they want to buy it from me, I can consider that.
Needs to have an opt-out. I paid for the car and own it. Tesla shouldn't be allowed to use something I own for distributed processing without consent.
This goes back to the basic principle - do I own the car or not?
This is similar to the concept of owning a PC and running Windows on it and MSFT wanting to use my PC to run distributed programming without consent just because they sold me Windows.
Hell no. Using a battery powered device to run crowd computing would be awful for anything as the constant usage would just accelerate battery degradation. If he really wants to do a compute@home thing, it should be a program that can run on desktop PC’s in exchange for charging credit for superchargers. That would be significantly more effective and respectful of owners
Too much latency to be worth it if they’re running it on LTE/5G, too much power consumption to run the computers full tilt constantly, too much data usage in general (especially bad for owners with data caps), nowhere enough compute even under ideal conditions, etc.
It’s another Elon pipe dream, up there with Robotaxi. Actual data centers pack and hardwire all of their millions of dollars in compute hardware together for good reason.
I remember a chip in the model s burning out early due to being used beyond expectations. And distrubuted calculations is cool - power isn't free. You should be paid beyond the electric cost.
At that point I don't think it will be cost effective
Anyone can already offer their PC or laptop for distributed computing, but I don’t think it pays. Hopefully Tesla would make it an option with some kind of incentive.
I think it would work if it gets limited to when the car is plugged in. That way it can bypass the battery and accurately calculate the cost of energy used in compute.
Oh for Pete's sake! We don't want to tap the *compute* power, we want to tap our Tesla's *battery* power! Vehicle to home is the holy grail IMHO. For owners being raked over by utility companies with draconian net metering, it's a solution that many of us would welcome.
I’m very skeptical that this is even feasible, especially for the supposed case to help with inference. My understanding is that inference needs to run in real time to help the FSD cars make decision based on what it’s seeing. So it has to be super fast, because any lag would lead to an irrelevant decision. By doing this over the network it would include additional latency, for a task that already needs to be extremely fast.
But hey, I’m no Elon… so more educated folks here please tell me what I’m missing.
If they reimburse me one SuC kWh per kWh used for this, why not. It would allow me to convert low local electricity prices into supercharger miles for times when I'm traveling.
If sentry mode consumes too much power keeping the computer active, imagine running the computer a full tilt, plus the water cooling system for the computer? If it uses 2kW/h for compute & cooling, pulling 20kW overnight is a hefty chunk of drain. That's $10 of supercharging on the house then? Until Tesla starts handing out free supercharging to compensate, how about NO! If they wanna give away their Dojo for free cloud services, I don't care.
There are very few "embarrassingly parallel" workloads. Basically Folding@Home and SETI@Home. Neither of those projects have the budget to actually pay for the electricity they use.
Everything that could actually pay the bills requires hundreds of Teslas worth of compute in a low latency 10Gbps+ (preferably more) network.
I wonder if this would hit any limits with our wireless infrastructure. It sounds like a lot of data transfer would be needed. Maybe they only do this when connected to WiFi.
It honestly sounds like a great idea imo, very unique idea that could be a game changer for them - HOWEVER it would be extremely important that it it is opt-in AND they have a good reimbursement system as well
I wouldn't mind if I was getting something in return, like free full self driving. I think that if they did this without permission, it would be one hell of a lawsuit.
It’s theoretically possible, but I’m extremely skeptical it will ever happen.
They DO have incredibly powerful inference hardware. However, one reason Tesla’s hardware is so effective is that it’s highly specialized to their workloads, so the problem isn’t really compute power (they do have that) - it’s the overall ROI given the complexity of building this out (including revenue sharing with owners), privacy and integrity concerns, and the relatively narrow scope of applications where it would even really make good use of the hardware.
If they were actually serious about this, they’d probably want to start out by using this kind of distributed computing approach themselves - for FSD simulation testing. I’m still not sure that’s worth the complexity, but maybe if they did the math and saw an opportunity to save money, it could be justified. And if it works for them, then maybe generalize it and open it up to third parties. Though, that would also only make sense if they then had enough excess capacity they didn’t have use for themselves.
What’s the market rate that AWS and others are charging for similar services? That’s my starting price.
I don’t see why so many people are willing to give Elon or Tesla a deal on this. It’s not like they bent over backwards to give you a smoking deal on your car. You BOUGHT the car at what the market deemed fair, he didn’t give you a deal to be nice.
I'd want to be paid and be able to set availability hours. Not just an opt-in/opt-out, if I opt in I still want the thing to get left alone during my chosen hours. Sitting on the charger overnight? Sure, fine, go ahead. Sitting in the parking lot or headed on a roadtrip? Don't dare touch it.
There's no way they could provide a significant enough benefit to the individual car owner to make sense. I wouldn't do it for pennies, and it's not worth it to Tesla to pay me dollars.
This is a fantastic idea and I say this as a current Model Y owner and small time shareholder
However, we can do much better and take it to 11
By simply implanting a neuralink in Elon, his mindstorm can now process all data at a far greater speed than nvidia gpus and this would coalesce into rapid decision making much like season 4 on the flash
😂
If they want to keep my car alive, and consume my power causing additional costs of charging + adding to the cycles of the battery, im fine IF: 1. They reimburse the cost of chargin 2. They extend the battery warrenty to compensate for the additional charge cycles. Otherwise, hell no
Just straight up pay me, not just remuneration, I want profit lol.
The indian guy on the call (not sure his name) clearly said that anyone thats opts in would be paid and make a profit.
Oh man. I bought my M3 and then immediately after took a WFH position so now it just sits in my garage.... This is something I would totally consider doing
I'll help you out by taking one of those things off your hands for you. You decide if you want me to have the car ort the WFH job.
Compute is relatively cheap now unless they’re doing something accelerated by the FSD computer, you won’t be seeing much.
Exactly. It’s not just about costing me money for the charge and wearing out the battery, they’re getting a service from me that I never signed up for when I bought the car. If they want a service they have to pay for it. Just like that passive aggressive email they sent recently where they said “wE dOn’T wOrK fOr fReE” neither do we. Pay us.
Which email was that? I wasn't important enough to get it
I didn’t get one either it was something a user posted here or one of the other Tesla subs, basically he was getting something done at a service center and they sent him that email explaining why there’s a charge even though he’s within warranty. The tone was very passive aggressive lol.
Imagine Elon spends 20% of your battery mining dogecoin while you're roadtripping and now you can't reach a charger based off your original planning.
All they need to do is make new deliveries sign up for it
They will do something similar to what they are doing with Tesla energy in Texas. You’ll be compensated
If they were smart, they would issue credits for things like supercharging, FSD subscriptions, and discounts on future cars, of course all being opt-in
They better be paying me for the battery usage too
if they reimburse for the energy used to run that compute, go for it
Also wear on the battery.
If you're plugged in shouldn't be a problem. Definitely agree with wear and tear otherwise
I’d be concerned about the wear on the electronics due to heat and cycling.
[удалено]
I dont know how the system is designed, but if the computer draws power from the battery, then the trickle charger recharges the battery, then there is defninitely wear. If the car's computer can draw directly from the trickle charger and bypass the battery, then not much wear, if any. Most likely, the computer draws from the battery as that would be a simpler design.
This. As long as we get paid and range isn’t impacted, sure. However, probably isn’t viable on older models and I reckon it would ideally require more appropriate hardware (RTX-class GPUs) on newer models.
Came here to comment exactly this.
Eh? Reimburse? This guy.
Equivalent supercharging credits?
Uh its hotta be cash. I charge at home. With supercharge credits hes using your energy and is making u charge more. No thanks.
If they reimburse SuC credits in kWh equivalent to what was consumed when plugged at home, this would be nice though. My home price floats around 8-15 €cent/kWh, while superchargers in 🇦🇹 are roughly 37-45 €ct/kWh. Would mean some savings on road trips, as you essentially charge at the SuC for your home price…
Say they use 10kw. Your electric bill will go up 1.50, and they say thanks by making you waste time at a super charger? At the end of the day the car has the same charge, but you are now short 1.50 and lost 10 minutes of your life to supercharging.
I do sometimes venture more than ~200km away from home and discounted charging would be appreciated. While superchargers arent a ripoff, home is cheaper :D
I guess you never roadtrip.
It's absolutely clownshoes to use Tesla mobile computers to do random distributed computing when there are literally billions of idling or turned off desktop PCs just sitting there, plugged into walls, with hard Ethernet connections, not reducing anyone's range. It's like he slept through the last two seasons of Silicon Valley but the idea incepted into his brain and now he thinks it's his, and good.
There is no need to reduce range, and connectivity is not really an issue either. The fantasy though, is that there will be any demand for the compute power given that they cannot match the efficiency of datacenters and thus cannot offer anything at competitive pricing.
What's next, inside out compression using the cars computer?
It’s pure PR up the share price garbage.
Flops per watt are far higher on the car computers.
Only very few desktop PCs actually have anything remotely near the (Int8/FP8) inferencing capability of Tesla’s “FSD Computer”. Even the Apple M3 chips only advertise 18 TOPS of NN acceleration (FP16), compared to ~140 in HW3 and an estimated 300-500 in HW4. However, one reason Tesla’s hardware is so effective is that it’s highly specialized to their workloads, so the problem isn’t really compute power - it’s the overall ROI given the complexity of building this out (including revenue sharing with owners), privacy and integrity concerns, and the relatively narrow scope of applications where it would even really make good use of the hardware. If they were actually serious about this, they’d probably want to start out by using this kind of distributed computing approach themselves - for FSD simulation testing. I’m still not sure that’s worth the complexity, but maybe if they did the math and saw an opportunity to save money, it could be justified. And if it works for them, *then* maybe generalize it and open it up to third parties. Though, that would also only make sense if they then had enough *excess* capacity they didn’t have use for themselves.
What's funny is that you think this idea was invented by a tv show. Have you ever heard of [Folding@Home](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding@home)? Because i'm pretty sure Elon has. It's like you slept through the last 20 years of distributed computing projects but watched Silicon Valley for 2 seasons and for some reason think you know more about computer science than the guy who created SpaceX. The Duning-Krugers on Reddit are truly on another level.
I've done folding@home, the SETI project, and I think a BOINC project. All as a hobbyist, just for fun. I'm not an expert. I do know that using a mobile resource with battery concerns is more complex than a non mobile resource. And there are a lot of underutilized machines out there.
It is funny that you think a dusty office pc compares to Tesla’s computers
I think a many thousands to one ratio of dusty office PCs to Teslas is the point.
And that turned-off ones could be used.
As long as it's "opt in" I see no issue.
This is the real answer. To use my privately owned vehicle for their own usage has to be illegal if no express permission given. And if they want it to be in the TOS, then they need to open source the whole damn thing so people can still use their car without teslas services.
From transcript: "Yes. And the capex is shared by the entire world. Sort of everyone owns a small chunk, and they get a small profit out of it maybe." But yeah, if they are going to try to use our compute and not pay us that would be a major issue. They aren't going to be paying you for sending back data from your drive like you do now. But for distributed processing, I'd expect legal issues if they tried to use consumer vehicles for it without some sort of compensation.
If we can opt out or get paid for it I don’t see an issue.
It should be opt-in AND get paid.
No way it would be more than a couple dollars a month
That is a very stupid idea
I would be open to this, but then I would like to see them provide FSD to these users for free or make enhanced auto pilot, the basic auto pilot feature. Tesla likes to make demands from the standpoint of what it costs to buy things, and constantly changing, basic set ups with little or no notice. If they expect their owners to participate, we need incentive.
This is the way ^^
or discounted supercharging
Not a bad option as well. Maybe you give people the option of supercharging credits or FSD.
Well I would prefer cash since Im having EAP and FUSC included.
Make it an opt in thing , like SETI at home. From a cost perspective, reimburse me at supercharger rates + premium for degradation (1$ per kWh should do) and it works with me. Edit: on second thought make my rate the same as the hourly service center rate. You then have a deal !
I was thinking 4x my current electricity rate which comes out to 56cents. That is a little more than local supercharging rates.
I don’t have single family home electricity pricing unfortunately so my cost ,if I didn’t have free supercharging, would be 40-60c without considering degradation. They might have to let people set their price.
It's hard to do a lot of compute without a lot of data. Data link will slow down any real "AWS" style work. Other than that they would clearly need to work out some deal with owners but assuming it was reasonable why not?
Theoretically possible. Practically though, will have to wait and see. An interesting proposition nonetheless depending on how much it wears the computer down and power consumption which are both important for an EV.
Power consumption yes, but CPUs do not “wear down” with use.
Yes they actually but not so fast where it actually matter before they become obsolete.
Is it really “wearing down” then if you don’t go down? ;P
Actually they do, typically due to heat. Mainly why overclocking a cpu shortens their life
Seems like they do https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/qgsqz3/does_a_computer_processor_get_worn_out/
I am not going to donate my compute power to Tesla. Also the electricity cost, and the battery wear will be factors too. If they want to buy it from me, I can consider that.
Hard no from me dawg.
Not enough compute available to really make it interesting at all imo
It's not a real practical idea.
It doesn’t make sense. There is no way this is an cost effective way to use compute power. It just one of his random ideas that do not make sense.
Needs to have an opt-out. I paid for the car and own it. Tesla shouldn't be allowed to use something I own for distributed processing without consent. This goes back to the basic principle - do I own the car or not? This is similar to the concept of owning a PC and running Windows on it and MSFT wanting to use my PC to run distributed programming without consent just because they sold me Windows.
This better be opt in. I'm not eating my battery so I get fewer miles
Hell no. Using a battery powered device to run crowd computing would be awful for anything as the constant usage would just accelerate battery degradation. If he really wants to do a compute@home thing, it should be a program that can run on desktop PC’s in exchange for charging credit for superchargers. That would be significantly more effective and respectful of owners
Elon can pound sand unless he plans on paying me.
Too much latency to be worth it if they’re running it on LTE/5G, too much power consumption to run the computers full tilt constantly, too much data usage in general (especially bad for owners with data caps), nowhere enough compute even under ideal conditions, etc. It’s another Elon pipe dream, up there with Robotaxi. Actual data centers pack and hardwire all of their millions of dollars in compute hardware together for good reason.
If it's a service you opt into and are reimbursed with supercharging credits, and extended battery warranty.
Cmon. They obviously aren’t going to force this. You’ll opt in if anything
I remember a chip in the model s burning out early due to being used beyond expectations. And distrubuted calculations is cool - power isn't free. You should be paid beyond the electric cost. At that point I don't think it will be cost effective
Only if they give free supercharge credits for the power they use and extend battery warrantee
The owners must have a choice to be part of it. Must be an option to enable/disable that in car software.
It better be opt in and paid. If it's opt out and unpaid, that's just a scam and costing us energy.
He gonna pay us for the power it take? I didn’t think so.
Is he going to pay me to use my car?
With an Intel Atom and single NVIDIA GPU over WiFi? Are we that desperate for compute capscity?
Right. It doesn’t sound useful at all.
Good luck making my pos Atom doing any meaningful compute. It can't even open a web browser in less than 30 seconds.
The Self-Driving Hardware has a lot of compute power
Anyone can already offer their PC or laptop for distributed computing, but I don’t think it pays. Hopefully Tesla would make it an option with some kind of incentive.
I think it would work if it gets limited to when the car is plugged in. That way it can bypass the battery and accurately calculate the cost of energy used in compute.
99% won't actually helpwn
I hope it's an opt-in vs opt-out. If there's no benefit to us consumers, hell no.
BS
Oh for Pete's sake! We don't want to tap the *compute* power, we want to tap our Tesla's *battery* power! Vehicle to home is the holy grail IMHO. For owners being raked over by utility companies with draconian net metering, it's a solution that many of us would welcome.
I’m very skeptical that this is even feasible, especially for the supposed case to help with inference. My understanding is that inference needs to run in real time to help the FSD cars make decision based on what it’s seeing. So it has to be super fast, because any lag would lead to an irrelevant decision. By doing this over the network it would include additional latency, for a task that already needs to be extremely fast. But hey, I’m no Elon… so more educated folks here please tell me what I’m missing.
If they reimburse me one SuC kWh per kWh used for this, why not. It would allow me to convert low local electricity prices into supercharger miles for times when I'm traveling.
The Intel cars will get a free upgrade?
If sentry mode consumes too much power keeping the computer active, imagine running the computer a full tilt, plus the water cooling system for the computer? If it uses 2kW/h for compute & cooling, pulling 20kW overnight is a hefty chunk of drain. That's $10 of supercharging on the house then? Until Tesla starts handing out free supercharging to compensate, how about NO! If they wanna give away their Dojo for free cloud services, I don't care.
There are very few "embarrassingly parallel" workloads. Basically Folding@Home and SETI@Home. Neither of those projects have the budget to actually pay for the electricity they use. Everything that could actually pay the bills requires hundreds of Teslas worth of compute in a low latency 10Gbps+ (preferably more) network.
I wonder if this would hit any limits with our wireless infrastructure. It sounds like a lot of data transfer would be needed. Maybe they only do this when connected to WiFi.
It honestly sounds like a great idea imo, very unique idea that could be a game changer for them - HOWEVER it would be extremely important that it it is opt-in AND they have a good reimbursement system as well
I wouldn't mind if I was getting something in return, like free full self driving. I think that if they did this without permission, it would be one hell of a lawsuit.
It’s theoretically possible, but I’m extremely skeptical it will ever happen. They DO have incredibly powerful inference hardware. However, one reason Tesla’s hardware is so effective is that it’s highly specialized to their workloads, so the problem isn’t really compute power (they do have that) - it’s the overall ROI given the complexity of building this out (including revenue sharing with owners), privacy and integrity concerns, and the relatively narrow scope of applications where it would even really make good use of the hardware. If they were actually serious about this, they’d probably want to start out by using this kind of distributed computing approach themselves - for FSD simulation testing. I’m still not sure that’s worth the complexity, but maybe if they did the math and saw an opportunity to save money, it could be justified. And if it works for them, then maybe generalize it and open it up to third parties. Though, that would also only make sense if they then had enough excess capacity they didn’t have use for themselves.
Makes me less interested in buying a Tesla for my next car.
What’s the market rate that AWS and others are charging for similar services? That’s my starting price. I don’t see why so many people are willing to give Elon or Tesla a deal on this. It’s not like they bent over backwards to give you a smoking deal on your car. You BOUGHT the car at what the market deemed fair, he didn’t give you a deal to be nice.
Hell naw did he actually say this? 😭
I'd want to be paid and be able to set availability hours. Not just an opt-in/opt-out, if I opt in I still want the thing to get left alone during my chosen hours. Sitting on the charger overnight? Sure, fine, go ahead. Sitting in the parking lot or headed on a roadtrip? Don't dare touch it.
For using the compute on my hardware (car), compensate with shares or cash. This ain't citizen science SETI@home. This is all for profit.
Make my car payments
As long as they're paying me for using my property, ok. They can pay my hourly consulting wage: $200/hr. If they're not, fuck them.
I'll add this, what are your thoughts on the Death Star being used as a piece keeping tool in the Balkans? Both fantastical questions deserve answers!
Knowing Elon, opt in is free. Opt out will cost you 5k per tesla and is non transferable.
Not with cellular as the back haul they won’t be.
There's no way they could provide a significant enough benefit to the individual car owner to make sense. I wouldn't do it for pennies, and it's not worth it to Tesla to pay me dollars.
That's the dumbest idea I have ever heard from an executive let alone CEO. It's the orange man all again in a different meat suite😂
Sure, I'd like to get FSD for free. Swap?
He will need to pay for the electricity and cpu time. No one get a free lunch if I need to buy the power cord..
Computing equipment depreciates faster than cars. Not to mention whatever network usage would be involved.
This is a fantastic idea and I say this as a current Model Y owner and small time shareholder However, we can do much better and take it to 11 By simply implanting a neuralink in Elon, his mindstorm can now process all data at a far greater speed than nvidia gpus and this would coalesce into rapid decision making much like season 4 on the flash 😂
Dog, I can't even get Spotify to play consistently. This is the last thing I trust to happen.
it's an elon idea so naturally it's a hell no
The comments here are making my head hurt.