Tesla's much-anticipated robotaxi unveiling wasn't just predictable—it was practically scripted. After years of Elon Musk's breathless promises about self-driving vehicles being "imminent," the company has finally revealed its grand solution to autonomous driving: humans.
That's right. According to reporting from Electrek, Tesla's robotaxi service will launch with "safety monitors" in the front seats. In the transportation industry, we typically call these people "drivers."
I've covered Tesla's autonomous promises since 2018, and I've gotta say—this is a plot twist even the skeptics didn't see coming. The collective eye-roll from the tech community was practically audible.
What's fascinating here isn't just the technical limitations (though we'll get to those). It's the psychological gymnastics required to call a human-supervised vehicle a "robotaxi." It's like advertising a "self-cleaning" house that comes with a maid.
The economics don't look great either. Internal Tesla analysis that mysteriously found its way into public view suggests the robotaxi venture might actually lose money. For most companies, this would be concerning news. For Tesla? Just another Wednesday.
Look, Tesla's business model has always operated on what some analysts call "narrative capital"—the ability to tell compelling stories that translate into actual capital through stock offerings. The robotaxi narrative has been their golden goose, justifying trillion-dollar valuations despite competing in the traditionally low-margin automotive sector.
Meanwhile, Volkswagen (yes, that Volkswagen) has quietly unveiled the ID. Buzz AD with actual Level 4 autonomy capabilities. It's got LiDAR sensors—which Musk has dismissed as "unnecessary crutches"—and, perhaps most revolutionary of all, adequate passenger space. Who would've thought people might want room in a taxi?
The great LiDAR debate continues to rage in autonomous vehicle circles. Most companies embrace sensor fusion—combining cameras, radar, and LiDAR—for redundancy in safety-critical systems. Tesla stands increasingly alone with its cameras-only approach, essentially arguing that "if your AI is good enough, you don't need LiDAR."
This might be more convincing if... you know... it worked reliably.
(I once asked a senior engineer at a competing autonomous vehicle company about Tesla's vision-only approach. His response, after a lengthy pause: "Bold strategy, Cotton.")
There's something almost admirable about Tesla's commitment to its vision-only path. It reminds me of that economist joke—an economist sees a $20 bill on the sidewalk but doesn't pick it up because in an efficient market, it wouldn't be there. If solving autonomous driving with just cameras were achievable with current technology, wouldn't someone else have cracked it by now?
The early rider program is a masterclass in experimental bias. By selecting known supporters from social media, Tesla has created what scientists might call a "how to invalidate your own research" case study. It's Hawthorne Effect meets selection bias meets confirmation bias—the unholy trinity of research design flaws.
But for generating positive social media content? Absolutely brilliant.
I'm particularly curious about what equipment these "safety monitors" will have. In driver's education vehicles, instructors typically have their own brake pedal. What will Tesla provide? A conventional brake? A hidden controller? The power of positive thinking?
Tesla has defied skeptics before—I've been wrong about their ability to overcome production challenges myself. And Musk's knack for eventually delivering on promises, however delayed, shouldn't be underestimated.
But this feels different. The gap between autonomous driving promises and reality seems to be widening rather than narrowing. There's a sense that physics, regulatory hurdles, and the sheer complexity of edge cases are proving stubborn opponents, even for the most compelling narratives.
For investors, there are essentially three camps: True Believers who see current limitations as temporary speedbumps, Absolute Skeptics who view it all as elaborate theater, and Tactical Players who simply surf the volatility waves created when narrative collides with reality.
Which perspective is correct? Hard to say. But I'll definitely be watching this story unfold—preferably not from a crosswalk in front of a Tesla "robotaxi" while its safety monitor checks Twitter.
