Thread

Tesla’s optimus hits snags in hands, suppliers as scale-up begins

11 points · 26 comments · vidulous

Loading the complete thread in the background. This saved snapshot is available now. Refresh

qlte · 1790357245 · focus · HN ↗
```
  This is also a far cry from what Musk was saying last year. In January 2025, he said Tesla would build about 10,000 Optimus robots in 2025 and that “several thousand” would be doing useful work by year-end. A year later, he admitted that zero Optimus robots were doing useful work at Tesla. He also promised a V3 reveal by mid-2026. It’s late September, and that demo still hasn’t happened.
```
1. ActionHank · 1790357375 · focus · HN ↗
  Is it news that he lied? Feel like he's lied more than he's been honest.
  1. Eddy_Viscosity2 · 1790422713 · focus · HN ↗
    For deeply narcissistic people like Elon, and Trump is in the same category, words are neither true or false, they are only a means to an end. They say words to get people to do things they want. Words that do this well are good and true and words that don't are fake news.
2. micromacrofoot · 1790357390 · focus · HN ↗
  why do people keep listening to him, he's done this dozens of times
  1. persolb · 1790375345 · focus · HN ↗
    How schedules are crazy, but the results are in the right direction. Current FSD does seem safer than humans. Reusable rockets are now a thing.
    But hundred of miles of tunnels, and driverless cars, and Mars base… not yet. Probably not ever for Mars.
3. electriclove · 1790357440 · focus · HN ↗
  Oh come on, we know his timeline estimates can’t be taken seriously. This site/blogger has had it out for Musk for several years now
  1. triceratops · 1790357594 · focus · HN ↗
    CEO of a public company lies about material information. Everyone knows he's lying, even his own investors and fans. But a journalist that tells the truth "has it out" for the CEO?
  2. delecti · 1790357635 · focus · HN ↗
    "Richest man in the world is either wrong or lies a lot" remains a valid topic of reporting even if it has been true for a while.
    ben_w · 1790358894 · focus · HN ↗
    While entirely true, it does seem a bit "throwing stones in glass houses" to take time forecasts seriously on a tech site.
    <a href="https://programmerhumor.io/programming-memes/burndown-charts-be-like/" rel="nofollow">https://programmerhumor.io/programming-memes/burndown-charts...
  3. toomuchtodo · 1790357748 · focus · HN ↗
    Reporting on habitual liars is "having it out" for someone? He lies, very frequently, it's public record. Those are facts. If one does not like the facts, that's a feeling. If one still supports the habitual liar for reasons, that’s a choice. Their hope is better spent on better people, but it’s their hope to spend and feelings to have.
    <a href="https://elonmusk.today/" rel="nofollow">https://elonmusk.today/
  4. m463 · 1790359901 · focus · HN ↗
    I thought that site used to be ok but then it became over-the-top negative towards tesla.
    examples:
    Tesla Semi finally enters volume production, 7 years behind schedule
    Tesla ‘FSD’ sped in 55% of Brussels 30 km/h zones ahead of EU vote
    Tesla Full Self-Driving bug falsely flags dirty cameras, demands service
    Tesla’s active robotaxi fleet in Austin crashes back to 8 vehicles after Cybercab pump
    Tesla’s record month: 4 fatal Autopilot and Full Self-Driving crashes
    Nowadays I tend to read this site instead:
    <a href="https://www.notateslaapp.com/" rel="nofollow">https://www.notateslaapp.com/
    CyberMacGyver · 1790361033 · focus · HN ↗
    How is it different than other marketing sites?
4. thg · 1790357613 · focus · HN ↗
  "Wildly overpromising and catastrophically underdelivering" is his signature move.
margalabargala · 1790357453 · focus · HN ↗
Other issues aside, "several hundred a week" is pretty impressive. They are either going to start finding jobs for the robots to do, or else have a glut of robots on their hands.
1. specialist · 1790357930 · focus · HN ↗
  Ages ago, a friend worked in a testing lab. When asked about the work, he replied:
  "It's chimp work. But chimps are too expensive, so they have us do it."
2. ben_w · 1790359508 · focus · HN ↗
  If they could sell all of them, they'd still only be the third biggest supplier.
3. TYPE_FASTER · 1790359530 · focus · HN ↗
  The Elon vs. Zuck cage match might just happen after all.
4. bryanlarsen · 1790361784 · focus · HN ↗
  And several days to learn a task? Is that supposed to be a dis? In 2026 with reinforcement learning maybe it is, but darn that seems super quick to me.
  1. margalabargala · 1790361938 · focus · HN ↗
    Either you didn't understand my comment or I'm not understanding yours, but no, there was nothing in my comment meant as a diss.
    bryanlarsen · 1790367722 · focus · HN ↗
    It's from the original article. I replied to yours, because it's the same style of comment.
IshKebab · 1790357801 · focus · HN ↗
Wait they actually stopped producing cars for this? I guess nobody was buying them, otherwise that's insane.
1. ben_w · 1790359837 · focus · HN ↗
  Same's scheduled to happen with the Falcon being wound down for Starship.
  1. IshKebab · 1790365446 · focus · HN ↗
    That's way less nuts. They've proven Starship can get to orbit so it's already viable for payloads. And it has a much larger payload capacity than Falcon 9. They've also recovered a booster. So realistically they can use it in disposable mode now, reusable booster in ~1 year (at which point it is better than Falcon 9) and maybe fully reusable in 5 years.
    Compared to humanoid robots where we might be 10-30 years away from having something that works well.
    ben_w · 1790375075 · focus · HN ↗
    > They've proven Starship can get to orbit so it's already viable for payloads.
    That proof is due on Monday. The fact it's the future tense is why this is nuts.
    > Compared to humanoid robots where we might be 10-30 years away from having something that works well
    Software, I agree. The hardware may very well already be achievable, provided they are remote controlled, which could already be economically useful depending on the price tag.
    IshKebab · 1790409343 · focus · HN ↗
    > Software, I agree. The hardware may very well already be achievable
    Yeah of course software. That's the hard part. Look at driverless cars - we've had the hardware for it since the 70s.
ben_w · 1790359568 · focus · HN ↗
Given their history with cars, this is shockingly poor performance.
I can only assume that behind the scenes this is a repeat of all that went wrong with the cybertruck.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.