831
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2026
831 points (98.6% liked)
Fuck AI
8308 readers
978 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Ignoring all the safety concerns. Wouldn't this make the door heavier and rase the center of gravity. Also where is the window going to retract to. There would need to be multiple tanks all balanced. I don't think the tank placement is an issue for car designers.
Issue was solved and someone is trying to find a novil idea from AI to justify the cost. LLMS don't understand what a car door is or what filling the car involves.
Those are perfect valid concerns but I believe the first one would be that you would have a hose running down through a hinge. Over time, leaks are to be expected, that is if you don't get your car door torn off and end up covered in gasoline.
Also in automobiles doors are expected to absorb the impact of side-collisions, which are very common.
The more one merelly thinks about it beyond the purelly superficial first order perspective, the more reasons pop-up not to have a fuel tank on a door.
Tanks full of liquid do quite well a dispersing energy. Think of water barrels on the US highway. The liquid just needs to be able to escape.
So we just need to make it an open fuel tank. Problem solved.
Wouldn't it be better to make the fuel tank purposefully explode in case of a collision and direct the energy of the explosion outwards, like reactive armor?
I mean, what could ever go wrong with that idea???
Or, hear me out, add some nozzles that require very high pressure to activate that shoot flames at the thing trying to crash into you to scare it off or burn it up before it has a chance to get through the door. Then accidents will have to think twice--maybe even three times--before they pop up out of nowhere while you're doing normal everyday things like sneaking through a red light (if you roll slowly enough, you can try to argue that you were pretty much stopped the whole time. It's not a crime, it's a great way to save time.)
The first concern would be "why are we designing things for ICE vehicles at all?" There's no reason to make general-purpose cars any more that aren't electric.
There is still issues with the electric grid and how people don't know if they will find a charger. Fast charging and availability at service stations has helped but I would say it takes a while to fully convert a population to a new technology. Ice cars also have issues like wild pricing and availability in some remote areas but people have settled themselves with them.
Mostly because people buy them. Because they're convenient.
Why are we designing a surveillance state? Because we can.
Do you think modern ICE cars don’t have the same surveillance features? Surveillance isn’t an inherent part of electric cars
You're absolutely right!
It's not even novel, in a sense. On planes the fuel is stored mainly in the wings. This feels like an extrapolation of that.
Difference is, the wings don't have hinges, which means airplanes doesn't need flexible hoses that can fail and leak between the wings and engines. Another issue are impacts. Airplanes are required by law to keep from hundreds to thousands of meters apart, something that cars doesn't.
And it's not like placing the tank in the doors would save any space. My previous car had the fuel tank right under the rear seat for example, which saved space for the trunk and kept it safe from collisions.
No, it's stupid, I'm just drawing on a faint similarity.
True but the wings are still structural and have the engines on them. Considering how much fual a jet needs you would struggle to find another place to put it. For a car there isn't the same struggle to find a space and if it's a small car you can make a smaller tank and stop more.
Sure, but cars are more easily designed to accommodate weird aesthetics that make room for spare tires, gas tanks, etc. It's a low bar.
It would make just as much sense to fill the trunk lid or door pillars with gas. But they're all too small to make it worth the effort. One 16 gallon jug is fine.
Planes what??
STORE FUEL IN THE WINGS
So the wings are like the balls of the plane? I always wondered why they were there. I guess electric planes wouldn't need them and would be able to fly through tunnels, which could help reaching areas with mountains in the way.
... What?
Where else would you put the fuel? under the passengers?
Sure I guess. I dunno, I'm not an engineer.
I think AI should know that already because they basically just use all previous human knowledge unless a weak model was used for this
LLM’s don’t know anything.
They have no capacity for thought or introspection. It receives an input and selects tokens that match an expected output. That’s it. Yes it has been fed the entirety of human knowledge to be able to do this. But that’s like a human memorizing the entire mandarin alphabet but never learning mandarin. An Al just makes a sentence that looks right, or generates an image that matches the tokens in a prompt. I could make a mandarin sentence with random symbols, and it might even say something. Doesn’t mean I speak mandarin.
Aren't we the same though? We don't really know anything until we learn or train ourselves with knowledge? It's just that LLMs only do this per prompt.
Yesn't. What LLMs lack and causes these idiotic suggestions is context from mediums other than language. If you get down to it humans talking are also just trying to predict what should come next, but we predict this from more input than just text. Particularly with something like design, we come up with the design and then the text and maybe concept art to describe it. The llm comes up with a description that seems likely and then feeds it to a diffusion model to make an image to go with the text.
Basically, the problem is input, but AFAIK a lot of AIs now are multi modal. Yes they can make up stuff but if you steer it to the right direction with proper context or inputs, it can help build. Maybe what you're talking about is AIs can't choose rather than think. They can think. Albeit, they can't choose only because of the guardrails. So, you are the user chooses to steer it to what you want
LLMs can be multimodal now. You can chuck a screenshot into claude code or whatever you use and the image generation process can also be done by the LLM itself rather than an external tool call as far as I know