So they can just call it a "Tesla™ Robotaxi", they already have a trademark. The Robotaxi part does indeed seem merely descriptive.
malshe · 4h ago
> Then again, perhaps as boss of DOGE, Musk will just use his "special government employee" status to bring the USPTO to heel, purging it of the experts needed to regulate his business, just as he did at NHTSA.
I clicked on the link thinking about this issue and found it at the bottom of the article.
Currently it's showing one critical disengagement every 206 city miles.
Maybe they could call it Tesla Robocrash?
viewtransform · 1h ago
Or ASD (Assisted Suicide Driving) ?
carlmr · 22m ago
Wouldn't it be murder-suicide if you hit other people?
DistractionRect · 6h ago
I've always found it odd that the leader for personal "full self driving" cars, is essentially last to the robo taxi market.
jordanb · 6h ago
Because lying about having "full self driving" is easy if you have no shame. Making a product that works and can pass regulatory muster to create a no-driver robotaxi is hard.
MaxikCZ · 6h ago
Seems its gonna be easier to edit the muster than to have functional product.
cyanydeez · 1h ago
they dont really need to worry about regulators. Now it's just about media and press, and you know, _actual_ capabilities.
Geee · 3h ago
Tesla's FSD has different approach / tradeoffs compared to dedicated robotaxi services. FSD has to be cheap and energy efficient, run completely on-board, and it must work everywhere. They're trying to do more with less, which has so far been impossible. Their cybercab and robotaxi service will probably work more like Waymo, with a slightly relaxed set of limitations.
Some differences compared to Waymo:
- Waymo has / can use more on-board compute, from [0] "It has also been revealed that Waymo is using around four NVIDIA H100 GPUSs at a unit price of 10,000 dollars per vehicle to cover the necessary computing requirements."
- Waymo uses remote operators. This includes humans but can also have remote compute.
- Waymo's neural network model can be trained / overfit on specific route or area. FSD uses the same model everywhere.
- Waymo's on-board hardware can use more energy, because it's possible to charge the battery between trips.
- Robotaxi services charge customers per mile, so it makes sense to run longer routes which are also easier to drive, i.e. the routing algorithm can be tuned to avoid challenging routes. This would be possible to implement on FSD too, but it seems that FSD drives fastest route.
Waymo specifically claims they never do remote human piloting. The car will present a remote human operator a choice of routes to get out of a situation, and the human will pick one. Remote piloting is way too risky.
affinepplan · 6h ago
they're not the leader for FSD cars. he just claims to be, through a little-known trick called "lying"
kcb · 38m ago
Yes they are...
mensetmanusman · 4h ago
They are the leader in miles traveled.
gamblor956 · 2h ago
Tesla is also the leader in terms of crashes, injuries, and fatalities. On a per-mile basis, they're the most dangerous advanced driving system in the world and it's not even close.
kcb · 37m ago
Are there even any other systems deployed with equivalent functionality?
noitpmeder · 6h ago
Because they don't have full self driving cars yet?
DistractionRect · 6h ago
Well, I'd understand why it's difficult to extend to nationwide or even statewide just because of all the variations in road/driving conditions. So I can get how FSD never got certified at either scale. However, given their experience and plethora of data collected, I would have expected they'd be among the first get robotaxis in select cities. Idk, just struck me as odd is all. I figured I'd tee off this comment because someone might have an more informed insight into the why of it.
shkkmo · 5h ago
Tesla has been working on improving a level 2 system that works everywhere while Waynlmo has been working on expanding the capabilities and coverage of their level 4 system that works in limited areas and requires detailed mapping.
Tesla has yet to get good enough to achieve level 4 so they can't actually run a robotaxi yet. Tesla's bet is that if they can reach level 4 with their approach, they'll be able to roll out robotaxis much more widely than Waymo can.
So far, the bet has not paid off and Tesla needs it to pay off before Waymo's slower rollout gets too far ahead.
robertlagrant · 2h ago
Maybe they need a non-software upgrade that adds a bit more GPU power for robotaxi duties.
Just because it's supervised doesn't mean its not self driving
InitialLastName · 5h ago
There's a word in GP's post that you elided. "Full" means a human doesn't need to be supervising, and it works outside of the heavily mapped and stable conditions of LA.
quickthrowman · 5h ago
You left out the key word in that phrase, “full”. Tesla cars have autonomous driving features that require a human in the driver seat to take over in case the autonomous features shut off. That’s not “full self driving”.
FireBeyond · 5h ago
Let me know when "FSD" can navigate this intersection in my state capital:
Four lanes, left to right: straight+left, right turn only, concrete divider, right turn only, right turn only. Note that there are only two lanes when you turn right, so you can turn into the rightmost lane from lane 2, the leftmost lane from lane 3, rightmost from lane 4.
Traffic lights (four signals) on the far end of the intersection work thus:
1. Left two lane lights turn green (Right two lanes are red). You can have traffic going straight, left or right. Traffic in lane 2 can turn right, but lanes 3 and 4 cannot.
2. Right two lane lights turn green, left red. Lane 2 cannot turn right but lanes 3 and 4 can.
All the lights are circles, no arrows. The only indication of weirdness is that there's a "No turn on red".
I do not see FSD behaving appropriately.
dragonwriter · 4h ago
Because calling a feature “Full Self Driving” is a lot easier than making a car that is capable of fully driving itself without a human at the wheel to immediately take over in situations that regularly occur.
bryanlarsen · 5h ago
I certainly hope they won't be the last. For a healthy market, we need at least 3 viable competitors. Waymo is viable, Cruise has pulled out, and Tesla is questionable.
paxys · 6h ago
We can call them last to the market once they are actually in the market. Robotaxi is at the moment vaporware.
k4rli · 6h ago
All of his enterprises are vaporware, if not to call a scam. Literally a vaporwave salesman.
alangibson · 5h ago
SpaceX is not vaporware, but that's more because of Gwynne Shotwell than Musk.
apparent · 5h ago
So the astronauts were brought back from the ISS by vaporware?
lenkite · 3h ago
Wow, I didn't know that Starlink was vaporware.
dlachausse · 4h ago
There are advertised features of Teslas that are vaporware, but it’s a stretch to call them vaporware. xAI is also very real. Others have mentioned SpaceX. He bought Twitter/X but that’s not vaporware either. Neuralink is also real. The Boring Company has only dug 2 short tunnels so far, so the case can be made for calling that vaporware.
robertlagrant · 2h ago
I need to stop paying for things with PayPal if it's just vaporware.
FireBeyond · 56m ago
PayPal isn't his. Never was.
He owned a company that merged with Confinity, which had already built a prototype of PayPal, registered trademarks, etc. at the time of merger.
He was made CEO. For four months. Which he spent trying to throw out the prototype written in Java because he only knew ASP.
Then the board fired him in absentia, the morning he left for his honeymoon. Not asked him to resign, not "focus on his family", but the moment he's gone, fired his ass.
Musk's contribution to the non-vaporware PayPal is "cashing the dividend checks".
andrewmcwatters · 5h ago
Autopilot isn't even the best adaptive cruise control anymore. In my experience that goes to Toyota Safety Sense 3.0.
kcb · 34m ago
Idk, every competitors system at this point is basically glorified lane keep adaptive cruise control. Similar to the standard Tesla Autopilot but far from Tesla's FSD.
tim333 · 4h ago
Musk's insistence on camera only probably doesn't help.
mchusma · 7h ago
That is great. Always nice to see sane IP decisions.
charlieo88 · 7h ago
Should have gone with the "Johnny Cab".
How did a Schwarzenegger movie from 1990 do a better job of naming a robot taxi than Tesla?
tempodox · 6h ago
Those were professionals.
SAI_Peregrinus · 5h ago
The movie was an adaptation of a Phillip K. Dick story, the name comes from the story IIRC.
atombender · 4h ago
There is a robot taxi in the story, but it doesn't have a name.
JohnTHaller · 7h ago
Especially considering it's been descriptive for decades in science fiction
pupppet · 6h ago
Oh don't worry he just needs to make a phone call.
drcongo · 6h ago
I give a week before the USPTO has been gutted from the inside.
recursive · 6h ago
If we lose patent trolls at the same time, I'd consider it's a fair trade.
bdcrazy · 5h ago
It's first to file now. Imagine front running patents! Or granting every application and preventing the throwing out of bad ones. Bend the knee and pay your tithe or be buried in lawsuits.
tzs · 22m ago
First to file really doesn't change anything relevant here. It just makes it so that if two or more independent inventors invented the same thing and both are applying for a patent the patent goes to whoever filed first instead of trying to figure out who invented it first.
Trying to figure out who invented first could be hard because your priority date was not necessarily when you actually thought of the invention. It was the latest date where you started working diligently to reduce your invention to practice and continued so working until you succeeded.
So if you came up with the idea and started right away working diligently on it and keep doing so until you succeeded then your priority date would be when you came up with the idea.
But if you took breaks you might lose that priority date, and your new priority date would be when you resumed work.
So then we have to decide when a break will reset your priority date. Is it just the length? Does the reason for the break matter?
And what counts as working diligently? Does it need to be full time or is it OK if you are working on your invention every evening after your job?
It was quite messy.
recursive · 4h ago
That's one way it could go. Another is that no new patents are granted. No lawsuits. Full Shenzhen.
kevin_thibedeau · 6h ago
Think of all the winning if they just direct examiners to approve every application.
geodel · 4h ago
So now this elongated doggy turd will try to shutdown USPTO.
lupusreal · 6h ago
I'm surprised they want to associate with the word "taxi" in the first place. Doesn't that cut through the hype bullshit supporting their stock price by admitting that they're gunning for the taxi industry, which is fundamentally low margins, geographically limited and overall niche? Even if they capture the entire global taxi market, that couldn't justify their present market cap (which as far as I can tell is supported by delusional investors who think these robotaxis will replace individual car ownership completely in a way that taxis obviously never will.)
dhosek · 5h ago
Yeah, one of the problems with eliminating individual car ownership (which I think is a good idea) is the fact that cars are more than point A to point B transportation options. They also serve as temporary storage units (the case that springs to mind is keeping my guitar and amp in the trunk of my car while I’m at work to get to an afterwork rehearsal, but a less niche case is a shopping trip to multiple stores where the goods purchased along the way are kept in the car at each subsequent stop).
And then there’s the case of special configurations, e.g., car seats for those with young children, wheelchair access, etc. Even once FSD gets solved (if it ever does), these use cases also need to be accounted for as well.
ghc · 5h ago
Don't conflate "taxi" as a mode of transit with "taxi" (aka hackney carriage) as a particular industry. The name is meant to tell consumers what to expect, not investors. Combined with "robo", I know exactly what to expect: a licensed driverless car that attempts to charge you more by using circuitous routes, is poorly maintained, doesn't listen to directions, and drives somewhat dangerously.
mindslight · 5h ago
The thing about bullshit artists is they can always generate more bullshit. Tesla stock marketing hype is not some fixed quantity that needs to be conserved. Rather, creating more is squarely in Muskov's wheelhouse.
bilsbie · 6h ago
I’m rabidly pro Tesla but this seems fair.
alangibson · 5h ago
> rabidly pro Tesla
Honest question: Why? They seem to be dragging up the rear in everything but unfulfilled promises.
tuckerman · 5h ago
They are clearly the front runner in L2+ ADAS (at least outside of China) and are one of the first teams to deploy an e2e model for robotics at scale.
orwin · 4h ago
'robotics at scale' what do you mean? Deployment of fully automated factories lanes at scale? Because unless they did that in the early 2010s, they are a bit late, no?
tuckerman · 2h ago
Do you have a good example of someone doing that with an e2e model? (not that I think most factory robots should be using e2e models, a more traditional sense-plan-act system usually makes more sense in that domain)
We were working on e2e models for manipulation and motion for a long time at Google X and I was at Wayve working on e2e models for driving. From a science perspective, Tesla's FSD is very impressive accomplishment.
Edit: Sorry I think I now understand your comment. I mean FSD, not their factory robots. I don't know anything about Tesla's factories.
gamblor956 · 2h ago
They are clearly the front runner in L2+ ADAS
No, not clear at all actually. Every day I see Teslas swerving dangerously while their "drivers" are using their phones instead of driving the car. When I used to commute past the SpaceX HQ in Hawthorne, I'd see at least one Tesla accident a day.
tuckerman · 2h ago
I'm speaking from a research/capabilities perspective but you can also review https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport which seems to refute your anecdote to some extent.
FireBeyond · 47m ago
It really doesn't. A few things you need to know about that report:
1. It compares "all drivers in all vehicles on all road conditions in all weather conditions" versus "the subset of miles driven in FSD conditions, where neither weather nor road conditions turn FSD off because it can't be sufficiently functional".
2. If your airbags don't deploy, Tesla doesn't consider it an accident for the purposes of that report (modern safety systems don't blindly deploy airbags, they evaluate g-forces, speeds, angles of impact, etc., so you can hit something at 25mph and the vehicle decides your seatbelts are sufficient. Tesla decides "that's not a reportable collision"). Know when else your airbags might not deploy? Very serious accidents, when hardware or controllers are damaged.
3. Speaking of which, fatalities are not included in that report. "It was a collision where someone died, but doesn't merit inclusion in a safety report" is a weird position to take.
I clicked on the link thinking about this issue and found it at the bottom of the article.
Currently it's showing one critical disengagement every 206 city miles.
Maybe they could call it Tesla Robocrash?
Some differences compared to Waymo:
- Waymo has / can use more on-board compute, from [0] "It has also been revealed that Waymo is using around four NVIDIA H100 GPUSs at a unit price of 10,000 dollars per vehicle to cover the necessary computing requirements."
- Waymo uses remote operators. This includes humans but can also have remote compute.
- Waymo's neural network model can be trained / overfit on specific route or area. FSD uses the same model everywhere.
- Waymo's on-board hardware can use more energy, because it's possible to charge the battery between trips.
- Robotaxi services charge customers per mile, so it makes sense to run longer routes which are also easier to drive, i.e. the routing algorithm can be tuned to avoid challenging routes. This would be possible to implement on FSD too, but it seems that FSD drives fastest route.
[0] https://thelastdriverlicenseholder.com/2024/10/27/waymos-5-6...
Tesla has yet to get good enough to achieve level 4 so they can't actually run a robotaxi yet. Tesla's bet is that if they can reach level 4 with their approach, they'll be able to roll out robotaxis much more widely than Waymo can.
So far, the bet has not paid off and Tesla needs it to pay off before Waymo's slower rollout gets too far ahead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQir90MktRc
Just because it's supervised doesn't mean its not self driving
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Q3VPJvJ6WwXe3gdZ7
Four lanes, left to right: straight+left, right turn only, concrete divider, right turn only, right turn only. Note that there are only two lanes when you turn right, so you can turn into the rightmost lane from lane 2, the leftmost lane from lane 3, rightmost from lane 4.
Traffic lights (four signals) on the far end of the intersection work thus:
1. Left two lane lights turn green (Right two lanes are red). You can have traffic going straight, left or right. Traffic in lane 2 can turn right, but lanes 3 and 4 cannot. 2. Right two lane lights turn green, left red. Lane 2 cannot turn right but lanes 3 and 4 can.
All the lights are circles, no arrows. The only indication of weirdness is that there's a "No turn on red".
I do not see FSD behaving appropriately.
He owned a company that merged with Confinity, which had already built a prototype of PayPal, registered trademarks, etc. at the time of merger.
He was made CEO. For four months. Which he spent trying to throw out the prototype written in Java because he only knew ASP.
Then the board fired him in absentia, the morning he left for his honeymoon. Not asked him to resign, not "focus on his family", but the moment he's gone, fired his ass.
Musk's contribution to the non-vaporware PayPal is "cashing the dividend checks".
How did a Schwarzenegger movie from 1990 do a better job of naming a robot taxi than Tesla?
Trying to figure out who invented first could be hard because your priority date was not necessarily when you actually thought of the invention. It was the latest date where you started working diligently to reduce your invention to practice and continued so working until you succeeded.
So if you came up with the idea and started right away working diligently on it and keep doing so until you succeeded then your priority date would be when you came up with the idea.
But if you took breaks you might lose that priority date, and your new priority date would be when you resumed work.
So then we have to decide when a break will reset your priority date. Is it just the length? Does the reason for the break matter?
And what counts as working diligently? Does it need to be full time or is it OK if you are working on your invention every evening after your job?
It was quite messy.
And then there’s the case of special configurations, e.g., car seats for those with young children, wheelchair access, etc. Even once FSD gets solved (if it ever does), these use cases also need to be accounted for as well.
Honest question: Why? They seem to be dragging up the rear in everything but unfulfilled promises.
We were working on e2e models for manipulation and motion for a long time at Google X and I was at Wayve working on e2e models for driving. From a science perspective, Tesla's FSD is very impressive accomplishment.
Edit: Sorry I think I now understand your comment. I mean FSD, not their factory robots. I don't know anything about Tesla's factories.
No, not clear at all actually. Every day I see Teslas swerving dangerously while their "drivers" are using their phones instead of driving the car. When I used to commute past the SpaceX HQ in Hawthorne, I'd see at least one Tesla accident a day.
1. It compares "all drivers in all vehicles on all road conditions in all weather conditions" versus "the subset of miles driven in FSD conditions, where neither weather nor road conditions turn FSD off because it can't be sufficiently functional".
2. If your airbags don't deploy, Tesla doesn't consider it an accident for the purposes of that report (modern safety systems don't blindly deploy airbags, they evaluate g-forces, speeds, angles of impact, etc., so you can hit something at 25mph and the vehicle decides your seatbelts are sufficient. Tesla decides "that's not a reportable collision"). Know when else your airbags might not deploy? Very serious accidents, when hardware or controllers are damaged.
3. Speaking of which, fatalities are not included in that report. "It was a collision where someone died, but doesn't merit inclusion in a safety report" is a weird position to take.