Latest News
-
Third Point discloses Warner Bros Discovery share, adding to Alphabet exposure
Third Point, the hedge fund of billionaire investor Daniel Loeb, has taken a stake in Warner Bros. According to a Friday regulatory filing, Discovery took a stake in Warner Bros. during the second quarter. According to LSEG, the fund's position of 20,000,000 shares would make it one of the 20 largest investors in the media company. This is at a time when the $110 billion Paramount Skydance acquisition has been halted due to court challenges. Third Point is a long-time investor in the media industry. In 2022, it will push for changes at The Walt Disney Company. The New York-based Fund also revealed that it increased its stakes in Google parent Alphabet as well as boosted their holdings of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern,?as both railway operators pursue their $85 billion merger. The 13F filing also revealed a new investment in Riot Platforms. This made 'Third Point' one of the 25 largest bitcoin miners.
-
ADNOC, the UAE's national oil company, says that one of its vessels was attacked while transiting Hormuz
The Emirati news agency WAM reported that the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company of the UAE said on Saturday one of its vessels was attacked while transiting the Strait of Hormuz the day before. According to WAM, the state oil company reported that no injuries were reported and that the situation is now under control. This was the 'third incident of this kind involving ADNOC vessels within a week. The UAE accused Iran of being behind the earlier attacks. However, the UAE made no comment on the attack that took place Friday. Before the conflict, a fifth the world's oil & liquefied natural gas was transported through the narrow waterway that connects Oman to Iran. Shipping has been disrupted repeatedly since the U.S. and Israeli war?with _Iran erupted on February 28. This has raised freight rates, as well as created security concerns. ADNOC, one of the largest energy producers in the world, exports crude oil and natural gas as well as refined products to other countries. Reporting by Menna alaa el-Din, Editing by Mark Porter & Rod Nickel
-
The resumption of Colombian coffee production could take several weeks. Processing is also affected.
Market participants stated on Friday that the normalization of Colombian coffee logistics, including the return of beans to a major exporting port, and then to export markets could take up to two weeks. Fixing processing installations may take even longer. Market participants said that the 7.4-magnitude quake in the Colombian coffee region?killed almost 300 people, caused landslides along dozens of roads and destroyed a number of warehouses and export ports. Carlos Santana is a director of global coffee trader ECOM. He said that he estimates it will take 15 days to normalize the coffee flow. Colombia supplies around 25% of coffee beans consumed in the United States. This is the largest market for the beans. He added, "The port is not closed but it's hard to get the coffee there and several warehouses have structural damage." ATM Terminals, which manages the Buenaventura Port, has said that operations have been gradually resumed. This includes movement in the port warehouses of coffee and sugar. However, it is not yet open to receiving more containers filled for export. According to the company, the earthquake caused structural and machine damage at the dry mill run by Caravela Coffee, located in Armenia, an area in the west-central region of Colombia's main "coffee belt". The?shared on social media a CCTV video showing the moment of tremor. The mill is used for processing green coffee to make it ready for export. "We don't know yet when we will be able to restart our operations safely. "We are still dealing with the lack of electricity in the mill," said Caravela's Chief Executive Alejandro Cadena. The coffee supply will be?tightened by the?temporary suspension of Colombian shipments. Expana, a price reporting and analyst agency, said that the event occurred amid ICE-certified arabica stock shortages. This kept nearby supply tight. Buyers looked to Brazil to offset any Colombian disruptions. (Reporting and editing by Alistair Bell; Marcelo Teixeira)
-
Mexico races to remove record seaweed growth from Caribbean beaches
Mexico is battling a record amount of sargassum, a brown seaweed that has a foul smell. The seaweed is choking beaches along the Caribbean coast. According to new data, officials in Quintana-Roo, which is home to popular resorts such as Cancun, Playa del Carmen, and 'Tulum,' have cleared 105,000 metric tonnes of sargassum this year. This figure already surpasses the previous record of 92,783 metric tons set last year. This haul puts the state in a position to surpass earlier projections of 2026, and intensify what officials describe as one of "the worst sargassum season on record." The authorities had estimated that 119,000 tons of sargassum could wash up on the shore this year. Scientists believe the massive blooms have been fueled by fertiliser-rich runoff, including nitrogen and phosphorus from Brazil and other agricultural powerhouses. As the seaweed rots, it releases hydrogen sulfide which irritates the nasal airways. Oscar Rebora is the Quintana Roo environment minister. He said that forecasts are uncertain. Rebora added that the most recent tally as of Tuesday was the current one. He said that Playa del Carmen had the highest volume of seaweed collected to date. The seaweed is a constant for workers who are charged with cleaning the beaches. Vitinia Villemontes, a cleanup worker in Puerto?Morelos said that sargassum has been arriving non-stop. "This year, it just didn't stop." "Sargassum continued to arrive from July to July," she said. "It is virtually impossible to keep it under control." Sargassum is a weed that has been encroaching on beaches in the 'Caribbean for the last decade. It threatens the tourism industry, which underpins the economy of Quintana Roo. Some companies claim that creating a market to sell the algae could offset the high costs of collection. Carbonwave, a company that processes sargassum to?liquid biostimulants, fertilizers and other products, said: "We believe creating value out of it is one of the strategies we can use to reduce the sargassum issue." Mexico's Environment Ministry has identified dozens projects to turn sargassum products into bioplastics, biofuels, and fertilizers. The government's support for commercializing the sargassum is limited. Most of its funds are still used to clean up. (Reporting and Writing by Daina-Beth Solomon, Andrea Ricci and Paola Chiomante)
-
India reduces windfall tax on petrol, diesel and aviation fuel exports
According to a government directive, India has reduced 'windfall taxes' on the export of?petrol?,?diesel? and?aviation?turbine fuel? with effect from Saturday. The government order showed that the duty on diesel exports was reduced to 24 Indian rupees ($0.2515) a litre (down from 25.5 rupees) and the duty on petrol was set at zero rupees per kilogram. The tax on "aviation turbine fuel" has been reduced to 19.5 rupees a litre, from 22 rupees previously. India introduced windfall taxes to capture the extraordinary gains from rising oil prices in July 2022. Two years later, it scrapped them. The levy was introduced in March 2026, after oil prices spiked during the U.S./Israeli war against?Iran. India revises its export levies based on the international price of?crude oil and petroleum-based products every two weeks.
-
US puts pressure on EU to "deliver" on non-tariff commitments
On 'Friday, the United States called on the European Union to relax its laws that place a?responsibility? on large companies for the environmental and social?impact? of their global supply chain. The United States claimed the EU had promised such measures wouldn't hamper EU-U.S. commerce. U.S. U.S. Now it's up to the EU. "Under the Framework Agreement, EU pledged to?ensure that its Corporate Sustainability due Diligence Directive (CSR) and Corporate Sustainability reporting Directive (CSR) 'does not impose undue restrictions on the transatlantic trade", Puzder wrote. "Extraterritorial Provisions harm American businesses and workers but not only the U.S. will suffer." According to Puzder, EU laws require that large companies, including U.S.-based firms, operating in the EU disclose their environmental and societal impacts, as well as working conditions, across their supply chain. According to a spokesperson for the European Commission, the EU and U.S. continue to work together on non-tariff and tariff issues. The spokesperson stated that the EU had explained its non-tariff rules and stressed its willingness to work with the U.S. in order to increase trade wherever possible. The spokesperson added: "We have always been clear that our rules framework and regulatory autonomy are not negotiable." Washington also wants the EU to amend the Carbon Border Adjustment Method (CBAM), a system that imposes fees on goods imported without meeting EU standards for carbon emissions. New pressure is being applied as U.S. officials and EU officials focus on non-tariff obstacles after the tariff commitments made in July 2025 have taken effect. Three sources familiar with the talks said that they expect joint statements to be released in the fall covering the non-tariff components of the Turnberry Agreement. Brussels has already weakened some of the policies that Washington criticised over the last year, including its anti-deforestation laws and methane emission rules. Sources familiar with EU policy said that the bloc did not plan to make any further concessions. SUSTAINABILITY RULES Last year, the EU also reduced its corporate sustainability regulations, known as CSRD or CSDDD after being pushed by businesses and governments, including those of the U.S.A. and Qatar. Changes agreed in December restricted the scope of Corporate Sustainability Due diligence Directive (CSDDD), and delayed the deadline for compliance by two years, to mid-2029. Corporate Sustainability Reporting (CSRD), a directive that requires companies to disclose their environmental and social impact, will only apply to firms with more than 1,000 workers, compared to the original threshold of over 250 employees. U.S. firms, such as ExxonMobil, had sought more extensive changes including an exemption of foreign firms. A statement that accompanied Puzder's blog post stated: "While the United States recognizes some positive changes in the December 2020 Sustainability Omnibus (Sustainability Omnibus), these reforms did not fully address U.S. concern regarding these directives."
-
South Africa's Traxtion Bets on Regional Rail Reforms and Mineral Boom
Traxtion, the South African rail service provider, is positioning itself for a?profitable regional mineral boom as well as sweeping reforms on the continent which are opening up freight rail networks to private firms. Traxtion announced in December a rolling stock investment program of 3.4 billion rands ($210 million), to increase its capacity and help support rail reforms in a region which exports important minerals such as copper and lithium. This investment includes the purchase of 46 locomotives, 920 wagons. Holley said: "The fact we announced this investment shows our confidence in the direction in which the rail freight industry is heading, both in South Africa and the region." South Africa has opened its state-owned rail freight?network up to private operators via an open-access system. This allows them to run trains on state-owned infrastructure to increase capacity, efficiency, and private investment. Traxtion also operates in other mineral-rich nations, such as Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo. They are opening their freight rail networks up to private firms through concessions to increase commodity exports. Trafigura has been awarded a 30-year contract in Angola for the Lobito Corridor Railway, and the DRC gave Mota-Engil the concession to upgrade the rail infrastructure connecting Congolese mines with?Lobito. A $1.4 billion Chinese-backed contract is revamping the TAZARA rail link between Tanzania and Zambia, while Zimbabwe has a $533,000,000 rail modernisation program with China Railway International Group. Holley stated that the regional rail policy environment needs to be improved to allow private operators to raise funds and create an interconnected network of?interstates, in order to increase efficiency and lower costs. He added that "this consolidation of the open-access policy in the region represents a fundamental change in the way freight will be moved."
-
US puts pressure on EU to "deliver" on non-tariff commitments
The United States called on the European Union to ease laws that place a'responsibility' on large companies for their global supply chain environmental and social impact. They argued the EU had promised such measures wouldn’t hamper EU-U.S. commerce. U.S. U.S. Now it's up to the EU to deliver. "Under the Framework Agreement, EU committed to 'ensure' that Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence directive and Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive 'does not pose unnecessarily restrictions on transatlantic commerce'," Puzder wrote. The U.S. will not be the only one to suffer from extraterritorial laws. "Those who suffer will be Americans." According to the EU laws, Puzder, large companies in Europe, including U.S.-based firms, are required to disclose their environmental, social, and working conditions impacts. A spokesperson for the European Commission did not respond immediately to a question?for comments. Washington also wants the EU to amend the Carbon Border Adjustment Method (CBAM), a mechanism that imposes fees on goods imported without meeting the bloc’s carbon emission standards. After the tariff agreements agreed on in July 2025 came into effect, U.S. officials and EU officials are now focusing their attention on non-tariff obstacles. Three sources familiarized with the talks said that they expect joint statements to be released in the fall covering the non-tariff components of the Turnberry Agreement. Brussels has already'softened' some of the policies that Washington criticised over the last year, such as its anti-deforestation laws and methane emission rules. Sources familiar with EU policy said that the bloc did not plan to make any further concessions. SUSTAINABILITY RULES Last year, the EU also reduced its corporate sustainability regulations, known as?CSRD and?"CSDDD?, after being pushed by businesses and governments, including those of the U.S. The changes agreed in December restricted the scope of Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), to the largest companies, and extended the deadline for compliance by two years until mid-2029. The 'Corporate Sustainability reporting Directive (CSRD)', which requires companies report their environmental and social impact, will only apply to firms that have more than 1,000 employees. This is a change from the original threshold of over 250 employees. ExxonMobil and other U.S. firms had asked for broader changes including an exemption for all foreign firms. A statement that accompanied Puzder's blog post stated: "While the United States recognizes some positive changes in the December 2020 Sustainability Omnibus but those reforms have failed to address U.S. concern regarding these directives."
Special Report-Why Tesla AI trainers do not trust self-driving technology or safety statistics
In an office in Utah, hundreds of Tesla employees scrutinize the video footage collected by cars using the Full Self-Driving feature (FSD). In some clips, the cars are shown hitting deer or cats. Other clips show more common accidents. They sometimes don't stop before hitting. They speed up a lot. Sometimes, workers witness children playing on the street.
These Tesla staffers, also known as "data labels," train the AI-powered Tesla driver-assistance system. They note incidents of good driving and bad driving, and report problems to engineers who are working to improve the software.
Elon Musk, Tesla's CEO, says that FSD will "soon" make all Teslas autonomous. Interviews with nine former Tesla labelers and an ex-self-driving engineering show that in recent months, the technology has struggled to perform basic maneuvers such as avoiding emergencies or stopping to let school buses load or unload students. (View the article on.com:)
Musk and other executives continue to tout the safety of FSD, despite its dangerous flaws. They have pushed Tesla into staging public demonstrations of the fully automated capability that the CEO has "promised" investors each year for the past decade. Displays include a robotaxi in Austin, Texas that was launched in June last year with human safety monitors inside the cars as well as others who worked remotely.
Four former Tesla employees said that as the events neared, Tesla staffers spent long hours mapping routes, and training software to recognize specific hazards, in order to make self-driving cars appear more capable. Staffers claimed that these labor-intensive safety measures are not feasible to implement on a large scale. These efforts, which were not previously reported, undermine Musk’s claim that Tesla’s self-driving tech will soon work globally, and won't need the laborious mapping of local roads and hazards used by competitors. Musk said Tesla relies on AI and cameras to simplify its approach. This will allow Tesla to expand its robotaxi service with "hyperexponential speed" and give current Tesla owners complete autonomy via software updates.
Musk and other Tesla leaders have reinforced the impression of robocompetence by citing statistics about company safety that, they claim, prove FSD to be up to 10x safer than human driving.
A? A?examen of Tesla's statistical method and interviews with?company?insiders shows Tesla isn't near delivering safely self-driving cars at scale, a promise that underpins the automaker's stock-market valuation of $1.6 trillion. This included an analysis of how Tesla compares their own crash data with federal crash data, a comparison of the more rigorous methodology used by robotaxi rival Waymo and interviews with eleven traffic-safety experts who reviewed Tesla's method. The review identified several invalid data comparisons that were used to support the statistics in Tesla’s FSD safety reports. Ten researchers claimed this was misleading marketing, rather than an investigation into a crucial safety issue.
Tesla, for example, exaggerates safety of the technology by comparing a crash rate in FSD-piloted Teslas which triggered airbag deployments with a federal accident rate for all vehicles, including far less severe accidents. Tesla also compares their cars with the average U.S. car, which is older than the typical Tesla. Researchers said that this results are distorted because automakers all have launched safety features to reduce accidents.
"Any new vehicle is significantly safer than an old car," said Phil Koopman. He's a Carnegie Mellon University professor of engineering and an expert in autonomous vehicles. It's like saying, "My jet plane is faster than your World War II Bomber." Yeah, then what's the point?
Tesla did not respond to the detailed questions for this report. Tesla's CFO Vaibhav Tania first claimed that the robotaxi was 10-times safer in July last year, following Tesla's Austin launch. Robyn Denholm, Tesla Board Chair, repeated the claim at a meeting in November where shareholders approved an incentive package that would grant Musk up to $1 trillion worth of Tesla stock. Musk displayed at the same meeting a chart that claimed "85% fewer crashes" based on the recently revised Tesla method.
Musk said to shareholders that he felt "almost comfortable" allowing drivers to text while driving. In the next few months, we'll be closely examining safety statistics. But we will let you text while driving.
Tesla still hasn't approved texting while driving using FSD six months after it was first announced. The fine print of its FSD site continues to warn that "currently enabled features require active supervisory supervision and do NOT make the vehicle autonomic." Tesla has often cited this disclaimer when sued for serious accidents.
FSD has been widely recognized as a technology capable of handling a wide range of driving situations and can do so for extended periods. Full autonomy is still elusive to Tesla and other car companies because it requires flawless technology execution, even in the most complicated driving situations.
Seven former data labelers said they would not trust FSD to drive them. One said, "We've all seen it fail." One man said that he would not ride in a Tesla Robotaxi "if you paid me." Another self-driving expert, who has studied Tesla crash data over the years, called Tesla's safety claims "bullshit."
The engineer replied, "I don't think you can trust Elon with this."
'TRAUMA TEAM REVIEWS NEAR MISSES
Tesla's data labels get an up-close look at FSD capabilities by reviewing footage from eight exterior cameras equipped vehicles.
Former employees said that FSD failed to perform basic tasks such as stopping for emergency vehicles or giving motorcycles enough room. They saw FSD vehicles failing to brake at freeway exit ramps. One Tesla even hit a concrete barrier. The footage, according to them, did not show if anyone was injured. Two employees claimed that clips showed FSD not avoiding construction zones. One of these incidents involved a Tesla driving into the construction zone and nearly hitting workers, according to one person.
This account is based on the descriptions provided by former staffers of the footage they saw.
Managers at Tesla carefully control access to videos. Employees only watch the clips that they are assigned. They may or may be able to see FSD's biggest failures.
Three employees reported that one data-labeling group focused on pedestrians who were close to being hit. One source claimed that the employees were known informally as "the trauma team" and worked in Palo Alto in California with special access to the footage. The trauma-team footage was closely guarded by engineers, but sometimes, some footage "slipped through" to the other teams, according to the source.
Both the person and an employee claimed to have seen clips of drivers taking control manually at the last moment when FSD failed recognize pedestrians at crosswalks. Two former employees remembered seeing videos of FSD-piloted Teslas almost hitting children last year.
Tesla has faced federal investigations, lawsuits, and other legal proceedings for many years involving fatal crashes that were blamed by drivers or regulators on the failure of FSD, or its older Autopilot system. In 2021, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration opened an investigation on Autopilot after a number of accidents involving Teslas hitting emergency vehicles. In 2023, the investigation led to a recall where Tesla installed software updates to detect when drivers are not paying attention.
NHTSA is currently conducting four investigations on FSD and Autopilot. One of these involves dozens cases in which vehicles using FSD did not stop at red lights or turned towards traffic. A second investigation examines whether Tesla's Autopilot upgrades for 2023 were adequate to solve the safety issues. The agency is investigating nine FSD incidents, including one fatal crash where the system failed due to reduced visibility, such as in fog or sun glare. Tesla was awarded $243 million last year after an Autopiloted Tesla crash in Florida killed a woman aged 22 and seriously injured her boyfriend. Tesla has appealed. The company settled similar cases without disclosing the terms in several other similar cases.
NHTSA did not respond to a question from NHTSA about the safety of FSDs and Tesla's method when asked by NHTSA. The agency referred any questions regarding Tesla's safety claims over to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.
The FTC refused to comment on Tesla’s safety statistics. Consumer advocacy groups and U.S. Senators have asked the FTC to look into Tesla's marketing for Autopilot and FSD.
Tesla has not been subjected to any enforcement action by the FTC.
STATS INFLATED ON TESLA'S FSD SAFETY
Tesla's CEO and board boosted their claims of safety as employees watched the videos. Tesla's leaders promoted this 10-times safer claim for much of the last year.
Tesla CFO Taneja stated in a call to discuss earnings that "a car with FSD will be 10x safer". "Even with $99 per month, you get a personal driver for less than $3.33 per day."
Tesla's method is flawed because of a comparison error. This led to a three-fold increase in the claimed level of safety. The automaker compared data from all crashes involving a tow truck with the number of Tesla crashes that had airbags deployed. This was a much less strict criterion. Tow truck crashes are often not severe enough to activate airbags.
Tesla used a flawed methodology, even though the federal data that it used included crashes in which airbags were deployed. The flawed methodology led to the conclusion that Teslas with FSD or Autopilot traveled 10 times further between crashes than an average human driver.
According to Marco Benedetti's analysis, a former NHTSA statistician and assistant research scientist from the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, Teslas with driver-assistance systems are three times more likely to travel between crashes in which airbags were deployed. Two other traffic safety researchers confirmed Benedetti’s calculations.
Benedetti explained that Tesla's method is flawed in several ways, and this does not mean FSD makes a driver three times more safe than an average driver.
Tesla changed its approach to only include data from vehicles that use FSD in November and excluded those using Autopilot. Tesla claimed more miles between crashes by including Autopilot because it is a less complex system that's designed for highways, where cars travel fewer miles and crash less often than in urban areas. On its website, the company continues to cite the flawed airbag crash comparison to claim that FSD is 7 times safer than an average driver. This amounts to 85% in percentage terms.
The findings of a study cast doubts on the safety of FSD.
When comparing its crash rates to those of the nation, the automaker does not take into account the age of the vehicle. Tesla compares the average age of its cars, which is just 4.1, with that of all U.S. vehicles which averages 12.8. Ten safety researchers said that this skews results because most automakers are now offering revolutionary safety features across their entire lineup, such as blind-spot detection and automatic emergency brakes.
Tesla reduces the number of crashes by counting only those that occur with FSD on or within 5 seconds after it is turned off. The U.S. Government, on the other hand, requires automakers report crashes that occur within 30 seconds after an advanced driver assistance system is deactivated.
Tesla claims FSD can save over 32,000 lives each year and prevent 1.9 million injuries. Researchers in traffic safety have called these figures meaningless, because they assume that all U.S. vehicles, including trucks and motorcycles that are crash-prone, will be replaced with Tesla cars that support FSD, and that each Tesla is at least seven-times safer than its predecessor.
The More?Rigorous Approach of WAYMO
Ten traffic safety researchers have said that the premise behind Tesla's statistics on safety is flawed as well, because FSD isn’t a true autonomous system. Tesla's executives are wrong when they claim that the company is comparing its technology with human drivers. Tesla isn't comparing its technology to human drivers, as executives claim. Instead, it compares the average driver with another human who drives a Tesla and uses FSD. Tesla fails to take into account that these drivers are able to turn FSD off and on. Research shows that motorists avoid advanced driver-assistance technologies in traffic situations with high levels of complexity, as they feel unsafe. Tesla's data indicates that FSD is mostly used on highways.
Alphabet Waymo compares its driverless robotaxis in 11 U.S. metro areas to similar human-driven cars.
Waymo adopts a more rigorous strategy than Tesla. It examines crash data from the markets in which it operates, and adjusts for the type of roads and neighborhoods that its robotaxis travel. Waymo looks at specific crash rates, such as airbag deployments and serious injuries. This is for both human-driven cars and Waymo's cars.
John Scanlon is a Waymo researcher who specializes in safety. "You have to be very specific with your research questions and conclusions."
Waymo, meanwhile, points out flaws in its data as well as collaborating with external researchers to publish its safety statistics in peer reviewed journals. Tesla, on the other hand, does not seek peer review, and only publishes top-line statistics about safety, while keeping Tesla's crash data secret.
VIDEOS OF TESLAS STRIVING DOGS, CATS AND DEAR
Data labelers at Tesla get a raw look at FSD safety. Three former Tesla employees have described videos of Teslas hitting animals at high speed without braking.
Five former employees stated that specific teams were focused on FSD’s difficulties recognizing school busses. The Dawn Project, a technology safety group, raised this concern by airing ads at the Super Bowls of 2023 and 2024 showing Teslas with FSD enabled failing to stop for school buses with flashing lights and stop signs.
Two former Tesla employees have said that they saw videos similar to those in Tesla.
Five former data labelers have described a chaotic, hurried work environment, where priorities were constantly changing based on Musk's and FSD's engineers' directives. They said that the data-labeling department was plagued by a high turnover rate due to monotonous work and low pay.
Four former employees claim that Tesla's higher-ups would often launch new projects as a reaction to news stories or social media posts that showed FSD making mistakes. One project was to fix the problem of sunlight obscuring exterior cameras on cars. A social media video showed how the light reflected off a watch of a passenger blinded a camera, shutting FSD down. A second effort was made at railroad crossings after news reports that Teslas with FSD failed to stop there.
Five of the employees also said that FSD clips regularly showed speeding. Engineers and other people higher up in the chain treated this as a problem with low priority.
After the automaker launched a "Mad Max mode" that allows for more aggressive driving, one employee reported labelers regularly seeing Teslas exceeding speed limits of 20-30 miles per hour. One labeler said he saw a vehicle driven by FSD traveling at 60 mph within a 25 mph zone.
TESLA PUBLIC ROBOTAXI DISPLAYS: BEHIND THE CURTAIN
Musk announced Tesla's self driving capabilities in October 2024, as Tesla employees struggled with FSD training. The robotaxi was unveiled at Warner Bros. Studios near Los Angeles. Musk showed off about 20 two-door prototypes of his "Cybercab" which had no pedals or steering wheel, to the invite-only audience.
He said, "The cars just pass by without any people."
Musk said Tesla's software was designed to navigate unfamiliar landscapes and work anywhere. Two former data-labeling workers claim that for the weeks leading up to the Cybercab launch, the staff collected video footage of the route the cars would take at the event. The employees claimed that labelers spent hundreds hours on video annotating road markings and curbs to avoid embarrassing incidents.
Musk has dismissed this approach as being too expensive and slow. Musk called Waymo's'very localized solutions' "quite fragile" in 2024.
Musk announced on a call for earnings in January 2025 that Tesla will launch robotaxis in Austin in June 2025, after the Warner Bros. presentation. He hailed the technology as "a generalized AI solution," which didn't need "high precision maps of a specific location."
Tesla filmed stop lights, road signage and other features for months prior to the Austin launch. Two employees who have direct knowledge of this matter say that data labelers marked up the video to make sure the software was capable of handling challenging scenarios. These included passenger pickups and responding to emergency vehicles.
Three employees claimed that the Utah data-labeling team doubled in the half-year prior to the Austin launch, from about 100 workers to 300. They said that the department worked on a variety of projects in order to ensure that the Austin test went smoothly.
Two employees reported that the software was still unreliable as Tesla data labelers were preparing for the "rollout". Some driving behaviors improved with each FSD upgrade. Some driving behaviors improved with each FSD update. Two large screens in the Utah office displayed statistics on FSD, a key safety metric for autonomous driving.
Former employees stated that the company's performance was "like the stock market", with no consistency in improvement.
Two sets of human safety monitors are available for the vehicles to hit the road: one in the front passenger's seat and another watching remotely. Labelers in Utah could watch videos to see when remote monitors were taking control of the vehicles. Former employee stated that the Austin routes were created for a small area to allow the software of the cars to be extensively trained on specific maneuvers in particular streets.
The person who said this described it as "OK, we taught a car" how to operate within a restricted area. "You can't be creative outside of this."
Four sources stated that scaling up in a safe manner could take many years. Musk said in July that the robotaxi service would be expanded to cover half of the U.S. by 2025, just a month after its launch in Austin. Musk claimed falsely in January that Tesla operated 500 “robotaxi vehicles” in Austin and San Francisco Bay Area. He added that he expected this to "double each month" along an "exponential" curve.
According to a recent presentation by officials, Tesla operates less than 50 robotaxis in Austin, despite the launch of the service nearly a full year ago. Three sources confirmed that the vehicles travel within a carefully-mapped and limited zone. According to recent observations made by a journalist, some vehicles still have human safety monitors on the front passenger's seat.
Tesla announced in April that it would be launching robotaxis throughout Dallas and Houston. It also provided maps of the areas covered. Reporters who tested the service recently in both cities reported long wait times and inconsistent availability. When a reporter was able to get a ride three times in Dallas, the robotaxi would not drop him off at his destination downtown within Tesla's service area.
Every time it took him 15 minutes to walk. (By Chris Kirkham, Los Angeles; and Rachael LEVY, Washington. Sheila Dang, Norihiko Schirouzu, and Benjamin Lesser contributed additional reporting. Brian Thevenot, David Crawshaw and Brian Thevenot edited the story.
(source: Reuters)