[pitpatagain]

It's already clear that there is no possible timeline in which they actually remove safety drivers by the end of the year, it's such a joke.

The weird thing is that between the extremely underwhelming tiny supervised test they run in Austin and the nonsensical permitting games they want to play in California, they don't really seem like a company that actually wants to launch a robotaxi.

[Zigurd]

> they don't really seem like a company that actually wants to launch a robotaxi.

Here is a prediction: when they don't actually get to remove the safety drivers, Elon will blame regulators and rage quit the Robo taxi game.

[ModernMech]

Not a bad prediction, but that's the corner he's in; it's too late for anyone to buy that when Waymo shows how it can be done.

[ModernMech]

> they don't really seem like a company that actually wants to launch a robotaxi.

Because they can't. They don't have the technology to do so, despite promising for years it's right around the corner. Musk backed Tesla into a corner by promising dates and missing them several times, and this is just another instance of that. They're playing a shell game and they've been able to hide the ball so far by calling things "beta" or a "rollout" or "supervised", but when it comes to robot axis they have to actually be autonomous, and Tesla tech cannot deliver that.

So all I'm wondering is where they're going to hide the ball next. I don't think they can push robotaxis any longer, which is why you see Musk preemptively suggesting robots and AI are the future of Tesla. Actually I think he's more likely to claim victory in self driving, ditch the entire car company saying it's so last century, and pivot Tesla into robotics than to actually release failure robotaxis. It's the only way he can keep the grift going; the self driving grift is done.

[apothegm]

The past 5 years or so they’ve looked more like a pump-and-dump scheme masquerading as a car manufacturer, so that seems on brand.