🏅 Top traders

Thanks everyone for your patience. I held out a bit to deliberate carefully, and in case there was any more late breaking analysis, but I think the media has moved on and we should too.

What I most want is to know whether the redacted NHWSA report supports this claim:

As we previously reported, the service launched with a Tesla employee in the front passenger seat with a finger constantly on the door unlactch button, which is likely to have been reprogrammed as a kill switch for the self-driving system.

This is likely information that would be confirmed and detailed in Tesla’s responses to NHTSA, and it would be critical, as it would prove that Tesla’s autonomous driving system can’t be considered level 4, which is now required to operate a commercial autonomous driving system, such as Robotaxi, in Texas.

https://electrek.co/2025/06/23/tesla-asks-nhtsa-to-hide-its-response-to-robotaxi-questions/

Nevertheless I am resolving NO because even without evidence of a kill switch, the front seat passenger is a safety driver, I can see no other interpretation. The fact that they ride in the passenger seat is the thinnest cover imaginable.

My full assessment of the resolution criteria based on the launch in June, YES criteria:

🤔 Is considered at least SAE 4

❌ Allows members of the public to summon and ride in autonomous Tesla vehicles without a safety driver present

✅ Operates as a commercial service (whether paid or free during an initial period)

✅ Functions within at least some parts of Austin city limits

NO criteria:

❎ The launch is delayed beyond June 2025

✔️The service launches but requires safety drivers to be present

🤔 The service is limited to Tesla employees or a closed testing group rather than being available to the general public

❎ The service is restricted to set routes, ie like a bus line

❎ Tesla cancels or indefinitely postpones the Austin robotaxi plans

@BlueDragon I'm personally biased in the NO direction (and bet that way in this market) and believe NO will turn out correct. But I think there's currently still some ambiguity...

1. Level 4. Depending on the role of the safety monitor and tele-operators -- whether they have the ability to intervene in real time -- this coooouuuuld still turn out to be level 4 autonomy. I personally doubt it but am uncertain. We'll find out soon, I think. (I'm very opposed to anyone on either side acting like this is obvious or trying to rules-lawyer the exact wording. The truth is no one anticipated the curveball of a safety monitor in the passenger seat!)

2. Open to the public. So far Tesla's hand-picking who gets invites. Probably that counts as a closed testing group? There's at least a bit of ambiguity. @MarkosGiannopoulos has posted some evidence that it's something like a normal waitlist or is becoming one. If Tesla rapidly expands from here and serious journalists and Tesla haters end up able to use the robotaxi service then I can imagine ending up feeling like, in retrospect, it counted as a public launch. Perhaps reasonable people could disagree on whether it counted as such as of the end of June 30th.

I'm continuing to agonize about these questions in my own similar market, in which I set a deadline of August 31 instead of June 30:

https://manifold.markets/dreev/will-tesla-count-as-a-waymo-competi

@BlueDragon Well, I am now glad I exited the market early, as it was obvious to me this would resolve to "no", given that the market was not properly set up. As I mentioned earlier, Tesla has spoken about a "pilot launch", so having a safety person in the car for the initial period is perfectly in line with official announcements (e.g., the "as planned" in the market's title). Focus should be on official announcements, not media reports.
You also have a 🤔 on the "closed testing group" criteria, but evidence has been posted of "regular" people signing up on the website form and doing paid rides.

@MarkosGiannopoulos These ambiguities aren't the market creator's fault though. They did great work specifying as clearly as possible what would count. Then Tesla managed to hunt down every possible gray area, making the task of resolving any of these markets (mine included) utterly invidious. The "as planned" is a quagmire. I'm sure we can find Musk quotes saying "no one in the car". I think we should just focus on level 4 autonomy and I believe we genuinely don't know the answer to that yet. If you wanted to lobby the creator to hold off on the resolution until more facts come in, I wouldn't be opposed to that.

@dreev If there is a Musk quote saying "no one in the car, in June, in Austin", that should be part of the description of the market. ;)

@dreev As for SAE4, Tesla has not yet declared victory on that. They announced and are currently in a pilot phase of the autonomous/robotaxi service. I would suggest you look up the Q1 investors call. The Q2 one will also be interesting (and well before the end of your own market)

@dreev As stated clearly above, I resolved on the undisputed fact that an employee rides with you in the car. I also very clearly acknowledged everything you are pointing out. Still I got ⭐️ reviews from sour grapers who want to quibble, I guess because somehow forcing an NA and a mea culpa from me for even trying to run a fair market is better than losing fake money?

The problem with markets about Tesla is that they attract a lot of blow-hards. I wish you the very best of luck waiting out sufficient evidence to convince them not to give you a hard time 😂.

@BlueDragon Ah, well, your rating is still 4.9 which honestly is better than a 5. If you get literally zero haters you're doing something wrong. Anyway, I personally gave you 5 stars but in full fairness, I understand the quibbles. I think that if (huge if) we learned that the safety monitors have no ability to intervene while the car is in motion (set aside all the other questions about public launch and possible tele-operators) then it would be unfair to resolve NO based on their mere presence. The spirit of the question is level 4 autonomy.

Again, I don't think above is the reality. I think there are humans in the loop, ready to intervene in real time, and it's that that justifies the NO resolution. Just that there's still some uncertainty.

The star ratings are silly. No one pays me to do this. I’m not a restaurant on Yelp. No need to flatter me.

My point in bringing them up is to cite the silliness of expecting that with time you will have sufficient evidence to convince people. No you won’t, it doesn’t matter, they are making bad faith arguments.

Happy to give you a 😇 rating for lending credence to the idea that there MIGHT be legitimate reason why Tesla is paying people to ride along that isn’t so they can intervene if something goes wrong, eg as a safety driver or operator or what have you. Happy to have a discussion about the distinctions between safety drivers and safety monitors, and in person monitors versus remote monitors, and the various abilities they have to intervene or not intervene. It is always possible I am wrong. There is no evidence of that and you yourself are not saying that, just that you have a market also that you think you are running better. Kudos, keep it up, and thanks for the 🤩.

TLDR: if I am wrong, cite the plausible explanation for going to the effort and expense of putting an employee in the front seat of every single ride.

@BlueDragon "cite the plausible explanation for going to the effort and expense of putting an employee in the front seat of every single ride."
Ask Waymo :) https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/18/waymo-cars-are-coming-to-new-york-with-a-driver-behind-the-wheel.html

Waymo cars are coming to New York, but with a driver behind the wheel

Waymo says it will push for a change in state law to allow autonomous vehicles to operate in New York City.

@MarkosGiannopoulos I think you've been generally offering the pro-Tesla side of these debates (very constructively, I hasten to add) but if I'm understanding correctly, this one is an anti-Tesla argument? Waymo has had safety drivers for two reasons: (1) when they weren't satisfied they'd cleared the bar for level 4 autonomy, and (2) when the law required it, as in the article you link to about Waymo coming to New York. So I'd say Tesla's need for safety monitors in Texas is indeed evidence for (not to say proof of) sub-level-4 autonomy.

Anyway, I'm a huge Waymo fan and Tesla skeptic but fairness compels me to emphasize that I'm currently about 50/50 on whether we'll end up concluding that Tesla has pulled this off. (My biggest fear in terms of my own credibility is that Tesla's cheating now but pulls off level 4 before anyone can prove it. Then I just sound hopelessly high on copium, as in my Turkla post.) I guess the creator of this market feels the burden of proof is on YES to show that the safety monitors / tele-operators can't intervene in real time. Tesla fans could fairly ask, why not the opposite? We do have one video of a safety monitor seemingly lunging for the touchscreen to disengage the self-driving, but the car was barely moving so it feels like there's still a cloud of ambiguity. I have my suspicions but don't pretend to know. Anyway, it's fine, the market creator can have final say.

PS: Super disappointing to see evidence of retaliatory ratings.

@dreev "I'd say Tesla's need for safety monitors in Texas is indeed evidence for (not to say proof of) sub-level-4 autonomy." - As I've commented elsewhere, Tesla is not claiming to have solved autonomy once and for all.
An actual quote from Musk in Q1 investors call: “The team and I are laser focused on bringing robotaxi to Austin in June. Unsupervised autonomy will first be solved for the Model Y in Austin.” https://www.rev.com/transcripts/tesla-q1-2025-earnings-call

Now, Tesla operates in an extremely hostile media landscape. Of course, they are going to be super cautious at this stage. They have been operating for two weeks with minor issues, and yet there are headlines such as "A Tesla robotaxi inexplicably drove into a parked car" (https://www.engadget.com/transportation/a-tesla-robotaxi-inexplicably-drove-into-a-parked-car-171004400.html) over an incident where a robotaxi's tire grazed another car while exiting a parking area after dropping off a customer. Meanwhile, there are videos on Twitter of Waymo cars getting stuck in intersections and blocking emergency vehicles :)

Remember that Tesla has been running a test service with employees only in California and Texas for several months before announcing it last fall. The Austin launch is the next step of Tesla's efforts, now having non-employees as riders with full transparency (allowing people to post photos, live stream, etc.). How long they keep the safety monitors is not very important. It might be 2 months, it might be 5 months (in the second case, I guess I will lose in your market). In my view, the safety monitors are primarily intended to prevent incidents that could lead to negative publicity.

Tesla Q1 2025 Earnings Call

Tesla Q1 2025 Earnings Conference Call. Read the transcript here.

hey guys 👋 maybe you want to move this conversation elsewhere? Doesn’t seem like you need me in it.

@MarkosGiannopoulos in response to my quoted question, you linked to an article that explains why Waymo has employees in cars in New York, which obviously has no bearing on the question of why Tesla has has employees in cars in Texas.

Unlike dear Daniel I do not care why you just keep talking even after divesting from my market. I told you I won’t NA. There is also no basis for agreeing with you on any of your points and this market is done. Please stop pinging me. Thanks!

A member of the Tesla Autopilot team confirming more invites are being sent and asking people to sign up on the website. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/brandon-goh_robotaxi-tesla-activity-7344016991357198336-QIGf/

We’re sending out more Robotaxi invites! | Brandon Goh

We’re sending out more Robotaxi invites! Fill out the form in the link and let me know in a comment that you’re interested ⬇️ https://lnkd.in/eSaSKR7K

@MarkosGiannopoulos
One of those invites (Ethan has less than 200 followers)

@Bair Nice find. It turns out this is, in fact, a waiting list form.

@Bair more of the same https://x.com/SawyerMerritt/status/1940151847794201019

Currently this will resolve NO due to closed testing group , right?

@tobiasscheuer It's not a closed test group. Invites are sent to the people in the "Early Access" programme, who are Tesla FSD owners who signed up for beta versions https://x.com/SawyerMerritt/status/1938107382258667797
There is also a public sign-up form https://www.tesla.com/robotaxi

@MarkosGiannopoulos that is a closed testing group rather than "being available to the general public" as the resolution criteria state.

Also your second link is for a newsletter not an invitation

@tobiasscheuer The form states "Be among the first to take an autonomous ride in Model Y. Complete the form below to get updates about when our Robotaxi service is launching near you."
How's that not a waiting list form?

@tobiasscheuer Any FSD user can join the Early Access programme https://www.teslaoracle.com/2025/04/05/tesla-launches-fsd-early-access-program-in-the-us-heres-how-to-join-the-program/

People who get an invite for the Robotaxi service are paying for their rides and can make social media posts (or even live stream it). Hardly a closed testing process.

@MarkosGiannopoulos right above it says big and fat "sign up for updates", not sign up for an invitation

@MarkosGiannopoulos yes, but it is also not open to the general public. FSD users are a small fraction of the population. Please read the resolution criteria

@tobiasscheuer The official description from Tesla in the Q1 update (https://digitalassets.tesla.com/tesla-contents/image/upload/IR/IR/TSLA-Q1-2025-Update.pdf): "We remain on track for pilot launch of Robotaxi in Austin by June". If this market requires something like "any person on the street can hail a ride", then it is simply not what Tesla has announced and is a waste of time.

@MarkosGiannopoulos then you have not read the resolution criteria:

NO if

• The service is limited to Tesla employees or a closed testing group rather than being available to the general public

Even a pilot launch could have been open to the public since Tesla restricted other things (like the area) as well. Why the market creator chose these criteria is not up to me or you, I'm just trying to trade this market accurately.

@tobiasscheuer By your definition, the market was set up to fail.

Practically all pilot launches of any platform have some form of a waiting list. Tesla already operates such a programme for new versions of FSD. It's peculiar to expect that some other system would be used.

@BlueDragon Do you have a comment on this criterion in the current state of the launch?

@MarkosGiannopoulos that's not my definition, but the clear interpretation of the resolution criteria. Noone forced you to participate in this market. I don't know if there's a change history, but as far as I remember the resolution criteria were the same since market creation

@MarkosGiannopoulos you keep posting the link to sign up for promotional emails as if it is a sign up link to be on a waitlist for robotaxi users. It is not.

My comment is that I appreciate the discussion, there are distinctions and interpretations to be made.

I am watching and thinking and will use my best judgment based on the preponderance of evidence and according to the resolution criteria, which have not changed since market creation.

@BlueDragon it is nice that you chimed in, but this comment does not address the question in this thread. Both parties agree as to what was written in the resolution criteria but they disagree as to what "closed testing group" means; you are the only person who can shed light on this

@lithp my goal is a fair resolution when the time comes, not a hasty adjudication of differently interpreted facts.

I chimed in to clarify that I have not and will not change the resolution criteria, otherwise I would have kept quiet.

One thing we can say for Tesla is that they know the media and their audience. They have gone to great efforts to at least appear to meet every criteria or expectation for a self-driving taxi. Thus you could litigate any of the bullet points above, and make a case for or against. I want to consider those carefully rather than just going with my initial opinion or gut.

@BlueDragon I have now exited the market, as the title "Will Robotaxis roll out in Austin as planned?" does not correspond with the "closed testing group" criteria. The official announcement by Tesla (see link in comment above) was for a "pilot launch", e.g. the service being available to a limited number of non-employees. Just sharing some feedback for future markets.

@MarkosGiannopoulos you spent most of this thread arguing that the program was open to the general public, then pivoted to challenging the resolution criteria when others convinced you that was wrong. In the future if you see an inconsistency between the title and the resolution criteria you should raise it immediately.

Again I have not weighed in on whether this or any of the other market criteria are met, as this is tantamount to resolution. If I were persuaded that the resolution is ambiguous I would resolve NA, in which case you lose mana by cashing out. I’m not persuaded.

Just sharing some facts with you for your future bets on any market.

@BlueDragon Your interpretation of my comments is faulty. I still contend that Tesla's service is available to the general public (through their existing beta testers program and their public sign-up form). I admit to participating in the market without asking many questions to clarify every single word of the criteria. I should have noticed that the title does not fully correspond to the description. Lesson learned. :)

@MarkosGiannopoulos faulty how?