So this appears to mean that Hyundai is effectively taking BD's humanoids "off the market" (B2C/B2B markets). And Softbank wants to take a different humanoids stake in OpenAI's plans.
I always wonder how people can tell. For this particular article, was it the thirty-four occurrences of em dashes with spaces on either side? Something else obvious?
It is the em dashes and the excessive wordiness as well as a lot of "not this, but that".
Eg:
"Not dramatically. Just quietly. " -- This is filler words. Whether it's dramatic or quiet has no relevance to the point they're making.
It also loves threes: "Well-modelled, properly sourced, beautifully visualised to requirements" - again, all irrelevant. The point they're making is that it's measuring the wrong thing, not that "beautifully visual things can be incorrect".
"There’s a piece of this conversation that most leaders miss, and it’s the part I care about most" - this hook of "most people miss" it is very common in AI writing.
Articles of this type suggest a fun game: "LLM or Marketroid?" Because either one could have written it, and both are capable of about equivalent levels of original thought. (whoops did i just say that out loud)
It was the content. So many very specific claims with no source, just stuff being made up. I don't know who Brené Brown is, perhaps she specifically researches trust, but how curious that her daughter can raise a problem with trust, specifically cite two named behaviours that build trust, and then Brown just happens to have a database of trust-building behaviours to hand, that she hasn't even analysed, ready to output a teachable moment.
In the article, she wasn't introduced as a researcher at all, but suddenly "She went back to her research data...". This totally smells like an LLM refactor where it re-emits surface level details, but completely misses the key beats that tie ideas together across a story.
What's your point? Yes, humans and AIs CAN make similar errors. However, continuity and context churn at this level is the sort of error that humans make rarely and AIs make constantly.
By itself it is not a sure sign of LLM output, but along with other signals it is highly suggestive.
Well, sometimes there's flat-out nonsense that seems to have been written purely to back into the author's thesis:
You cannot design an algorithm that eavesdrops on dinner conversation and dispatches someone to buy a street hot dog, because the person on the receiving end would immediately sense the machinery of it.
But usually there's also:
- Word count hovering between four and five thousand words
- Dramatic/narrative section titles
- "No X, no Y. Just Z"
Last but certainly not least, there's the Lists of Exactly Three Things. I counted literally thirty in this piece. Examples:
- "...the ritual of a human voice, the small exchange about an anniversary or a first date, the warmth of being recognised."
- "Who was celebrating a birthday? Who was on a first date? What had a regular not finished on their plate six months ago?"
- "You can’t purchase it, automate it, or accelerate it with a clever marketing campaign."
- "...forgive outages, laugh off a late delivery, stay through a price increase."
- "...the food arrives hot, the bill is accurate, the room is clean."
- "You notice, you adjust, you respond."
I personally thought to myself "written by AI" after this part:
... the restaurant was fully booked. No warmth. No conversation. Just a long wait and a closed door. In trying to humanise the process, he’d made it worse.
I'm sure some people write this way, but most don't. And AI writes this way.
$1.2M in Canada after provincial and federal luxury sales taxes. For a 5100 pound, sub-300 mile range, mid-performer with 23/24" wheels. All those louvres, ducts, and aerodynamics for a terribly inefficient EV. Disappointing. (edited because i had $1.1M as the final price)
Unsurprising, for a Ferrari. I suspect it's designed for performance and not efficiency. Atrocious mileage is par for the course in this segment (see the Veyron)
I've done Stockholm - Oslo on a single charge in early winter, which is almost exactly that distance, so I'd say it does! Even kept me nice and toasty along the way!
The actual number of the EPA range is imaginary, yes. But it's useful for comparisons.
But if we're talking about comparisons between two vehicles, the vehicle with a 122kWh battery and a 280 EPA range will go less far and is much less efficient than the vehicle with a 84kWh batter and a 300 EPA range.
They’ve historically had eye watering regular maintenance bills, even outside of them generally having a reputation for being temperamental. Maybe Ferrari will continue pioneering in their own way and make an unreliable and expensive to own EV
The idea that 100s of global pension funds don't do their due diligence when investing 100s of millions or billions of their members' future retirement funds is extremely naive. With sincerity, I hope you can find a way not to be so emotional about what Musk says and be more grounded in what his companies and their employees are doing.
Investing in SpaceX is one thing. Investing in SpaceX that is now merged with several other failed companies that each incur massive yearly additional losses.... let's see how long those funds still hold SpaceX.
BYD has two SUVs in the ranking, which added together brings them to parity with the Y.
That aside though, in total sales, BYD is selling 2.5x the amount of EVs.
Tesla ranked 9th, behind Toyota and Volkswagen for total sales in Feb and March.
Globally, Tesla has a tight lineup, so there is only one SUV choice. Other brands outsell Tesla model Y, but it's splintered across their many offerings in the SUV space. Tesla really wants you to know that the model Y is the top selling car globally. They don't want you to know that other SUV brands outsell them, but in the form of many different models.
This is exactly the kind of nonsesne flexing I am referring to that comes out of Tesla for the last few years. Things that on the surface seem "wow", but underneath are just shady or misdirection.
Tesla sales numbers are perpetually skewed by their limited model numbers. Other car manufacturers (rightly or wrongly) have many more SKUs, so any one particular version is unlikely to hit the #1 spot.
I really used to enjoy Fred's writing on Electrek. But after the Roadster referral debacle, Fred's tune changed and has gotten more negative... so negative now that you cannot find any positive articles about Musk or Tesla (some articles you might classify as 'neutral'). If you look at comment counts, it's clear Fred is playing to the "I hate Musk" crowd now for clicks (comments and clicks have similar outcomes for Google Adsense). Electrek's other articles' comment counts pale in comparison. So the incentive is pretty obvious now. Too bad.
I find it funny how stealing 500,000 $ from a fan is a "debacle". In most places that would be considered a felony instead of a justification to smear the victim and call them a whiner.
You are totally right. In accordance with the Tesla Referral Program contract a estimated ~250,000,000 $ in sales were referred to Tesla by major referrers earning those major referrers ~80 free Tesla Roadsters [1], announced as a 250,000 $ value and used a explicit contractual incentive to the program, in accordance with that legal contract. Having engaged in work on behalf of Tesla on the contractual guarantee of compensation and having earned that compensation in accordance with the contract, Tesla legally owes those fans ~20,000,000 $ in aggregate which it has so far rejected compensating for nearly 7 years.
I am not sure what term you use for having people work on your behalf according to the terms of a contract and then not paying the agreed upon compensation, but "theft" or "steal" would be the colloquial term. Only the intentionally biased would claim a trillion dollar company not paying fans for their work in accordance with their own contract is not "stealing" in common parlance.
I am sorry I was downplaying Tesla's bad behavior by just highlighting that individual fans were jilted out of hundreds of thousands of dollars of their work instead of pointing out how they screwed hundreds of their most loyal fans out of tens of millions of dollars of earned compensation. Anything other than praise for such a upstanding company is unwarranted and smearing their victims is the only unbiased move.
Elektrek went from insufferably pro Tesla to insufferably anti Tesla. If you liked it before and not now, your quarrel is with the direction of the propaganda.
Why do you want the articles to be "positive" or "negative"? Why do you not want them to simply be the fact of the matter?
If you want more good news about Tesla then perhaps Tesla should be better run. Perhaps Tesla should abandon their policy of constantly lying. Tesla's been lying continuously about full self-driving for a decade. Tesla lies about dumb things there's no need to lie about like how fast the Cybertruck is:
Tesla never ran that quarter mile, a lie which the lead Cybertruck engineer pathetically tried to defend. When even your engineers can't achieve basic honesty then you've got a sick company culture:
