Elon Musk has been very explicit in promising a robotaxi launch in Austin in June with unsupervised full self-driving (FSD). We'll give him some leeway on the timing and say this counts as a YES if it happens by the end of August.
As of April 2025, Tesla seems to be testing this with employees and with supervised FSD and doubling down on the public Austin launch.
PS: A big monkey wrench no one anticipated when we created this market is how to treat the passenger-seat safety monitors. See FAQ9 for how we're trying to handle that in a principled way. Tesla is very polarizing and I know it's "obvious" to one side that safety monitors = "supervised" and that it's equally obvious to the other side that the driver's seat being empty is what matters. I can't emphasize enough how not obvious any of this is. At least so far, speaking now in August 2025.
FAQ
1. Does it have to be a public launch?
Yes, but we won't quibble about waitlists. As long as even 10 non-handpicked members of the public have used the service by the end of August, that's a YES. Also if there's a waitlist, anyone has to be able to get on it and there has to be intent to scale up. In other words, Tesla robotaxis have to be actually becoming a thing, with summer 2025 as when it started.
If it's invite-only and Tesla is hand-picking people, that's not a public launch. If it's viral-style invites with exponential growth from the start, that's likely to be within the spirit of a public launch.
A potential litmus test is whether serious journalists and Tesla haters end up able to try the service.
UPDATE: We're deeming this to be satisfied.
2. What if there's a human backup driver in the driver's seat?
This importantly does not count. That's supervised FSD.
3. But what if the backup driver never actually intervenes?
Compare to Waymo, which goes millions of miles between [injury-causing] incidents. If there's a backup driver we're going to presume that it's because interventions are still needed, even if rarely.
4. What if it's only available for certain fixed routes?
That would resolve NO. It has to be available on unrestricted public roads [restrictions like no highways is ok] and you have to be able to choose an arbitrary destination. I.e., it has to count as a taxi service.
5. What if it's only available in a certain neighborhood?
This we'll allow. It just has to be a big enough neighborhood that it makes sense to use a taxi. Basically anything that isn't a drastic restriction of the environment.
6. What if they drop the robotaxi part but roll out unsupervised FSD to Tesla owners?
This is unlikely but if this were level 4+ autonomy where you could send your car by itself to pick up a friend, we'd call that a YES per the spirit of the question.
7. What about level 3 autonomy?
Level 3 means you don't have to actively supervise the driving (like you can read a book in the driver's seat) as long as you're available to immediately take over when the car beeps at you. This would be tantalizingly close and a very big deal but is ultimately a NO. My reason to be picky about this is that a big part of the spirit of the question is whether Tesla will catch up to Waymo, technologically if not in scale at first.
8. What about tele-operation?
The short answer is that that's not level 4 autonomy so that would resolve NO for this market. This is a common misconception about Waymo's phone-a-human feature. It's not remotely (ha) like a human with a VR headset steering and braking. If that ever happened it would count as a disengagement and have to be reported. See Waymo's blog post with examples and screencaps of the cars needing remote assistance.
To get technical about the boundary between a remote human giving guidance to the car vs remotely operating it, grep "remote assistance" in Waymo's advice letter filed with the California Public Utilities Commission last month. Excerpt:
The Waymo AV [autonomous vehicle] sometimes reaches out to Waymo Remote Assistance for additional information to contextualize its environment. The Waymo Remote Assistance team supports the Waymo AV with information and suggestions [...] Assistance is designed to be provided quickly - in a mater of seconds - to help get the Waymo AV on its way with minimal delay. For a majority of requests that the Waymo AV makes during everyday driving, the Waymo AV is able to proceed driving autonomously on its own. In very limited circumstances such as to facilitate movement of the AV out of a freeway lane onto an adjacent shoulder, if possible, our Event Response agents are able to remotely move the Waymo AV under strict parameters, including at a very low speed over a very short distance.
Tentatively, Tesla needs to meet the bar for autonomy that Waymo has set. But if there are edge cases where Tesla is close enough in spirit, we can debate that in the comments.
9. What about human safety monitors in the passenger seat?
Oh geez, it's like Elon Musk is trolling us to maximize the ambiguity of these market resolutions. Tentatively (we'll keep discussing in the comments) my verdict on this question depends on whether the human safety monitor has to be eyes-on-the-road the whole time with their finger on a kill switch or emergency brake. If so, I believe that's still level 2 autonomy. Or sub-4 in any case.
See also FAQ3 for why this matters even if a kill switch is never actually used. We need there not only to be no actual disengagements but no counterfactual disengagements. Like imagine that these robotaxis would totally mow down a kid who ran into the road. That would mean a safety monitor with an emergency brake is necessary, even if no kids happen to jump in front of any robotaxis before this market closes. Waymo, per the definition of level 4 autonomy, does not have that kind of supervised self-driving.
10. Will we ultimately trust Tesla if it reports it's genuinely level 4?
I want to avoid this since I don't think Tesla has exactly earned our trust on this. I believe the truth will come out if we wait long enough, so that's what I'll be inclined to do. If the truth seems impossible for us to ascertain, we can consider resolve-to-PROB.
11. Will we trust government certification that it's level 4?
Yes, I think this is the right standard. Elon Musk said on 2025-07-09 that Tesla was waiting on regulatory approval for robotaxis in California and expected to launch in the Bay Area "in a month or two". I'm not sure what such approval implies about autonomy level but I expect it to be evidence in favor. (And if it starts to look like Musk was bullshitting, that would be evidence against.)
12. What if it's still ambiguous on August 31?
Then we'll extend the market close. The deadline for Tesla to meet the criteria for a launch is August 31 regardless. We just may need more time to determine, in retrospect, whether it counted by then. I suspect that with enough hindsight the ambiguity will resolve. Note in particular FAQ1 which says that Tesla robotaxis have to be becoming a thing (what "a thing" is is TBD but something about ubiquity and availability) with summer 2025 as when it started. Basically, we may need to look back on summer 2025 and decide whether that was a controlled demo, done before they actually had level 4 autonomy, or whether they had it and just were scaling up slowing and cautiously at first.
13. If safety monitors are still present, say, a year later, is there any way for this to resolve YES?
No, that's well past the point of presuming that Tesla had not achieved level 4 autonomy in summer 2025.
14. What if they ditch the safety monitors after August 31st but tele-operation is still a question mark?
We'll also need transparency about tele-operation and disengagements. If that doesn't happen by June 22, 2026 (a year after the robotaxi launch) then that too is a presumed NO.
Ask more clarifying questions! I'll be super transparent about my thinking and will make sure the resolution is fair if I have a conflict of interest due to my position in this market.
[Ignore any auto-generated clarifications below this line. I'll add to the FAQ as needed.]
Update 2025-11-01 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator is [tentatively] proposing a new necessary condition for YES resolution: the graph of driver-out miles (miles without a safety driver in the driver's seat) should go roughly exponential in the year following the initial launch. If the graph is flat or going down (as it may have done in October 2025), that would be a sufficient condition for NO resolution.
Update 2025-12-10 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has indicated that Elon Musk's November 6th, 2025 statement ("Now that we believe we have full self-driving / autonomy solved, or within a few months of having unsupervised autonomy solved... We're on the cusp of that") appears to be an admission that the cars weren't level 4 in August 2025. The creator is open to counterarguments but views this as evidence against YES resolution.
Update 2025-12-10 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator clarified that presence of safety monitors alone is not dispositive for determining if the service meets level 4 autonomy. What matters is whether the safety monitor is necessary for safety (e.g., having their finger on a kill switch).
Additionally, if Tesla doesn't remove safety monitors until deploying a markedly bigger AI model, that would be evidence the previous AI model was not level 4 autonomous.
Update 2026-01-31 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator clarified that passenger-seat emergency stop buttons should be evaluated based on their function:
If the button is a real-time "hit the brakes we're gonna crash!" intervention button, this would indicate supervision that could rule out level 4 autonomy
If the button is a "stop requested as soon as safely possible" button (where the car remains in control until safely stopped), this would not rule out level 4 autonomy
This distinction applies to both Waymo (the benchmark) and Tesla. The creator emphasized that mere presence of a safety monitor doesn't rule out level 4 - what matters is whether there is supervision with the ability to intervene in real time.
Update 2026-02-01 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has proposed a concrete scenario for June 22, 2026 (the one-year deadline from FAQ14) that would result in NO resolution:
(a) Longer zero-intervention streaks but not to the point that unsupervised FSD is safer than humans
(b) More unsupervised robotaxi rides but not at a scale where tele-operation becomes implausible
(c) Continued lack of transparency on disengagements
(d) Creative new milestones that seem like watersheds but turn out to be closer to controlled demos
Conversely, if Tesla demonstrates a clear step change in autonomy before June 22, 2026 (such as declaring victory, opening up about disengagements, and shooting past Waymo), there would still be a debate about whether Tesla was at level 4 on August 31, 2025, but it would be more reasonable to give Tesla the benefit of the doubt on questions about tele-operation and kill switches.
Update 2026-02-02 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has clarified terminology and concepts around supervision and disengagement:
Supervision refers to a human in the loop in real time, watching the road and able to intervene.
Real-time disengagement is when a human supervisor intervenes to control the car in some way - a gap in the car's autonomy. If the car stops on its own and asks for help or needs rescuing, those might count as other kinds of disengagement but not a real-time disengagement.
Evidence threshold: Human drivers have fatalities roughly once per 100 million miles, or non-fatal crashes every half million miles. A supervised self-driving car needs to go hundreds of thousands of miles between real-time disengagements before we have much evidence it's human-level safe.
With less than 100k robotaxi miles, seeing zero real-time disengagements would still be fairly weak evidence that the robotaxis would crash less than humans when unsupervised.
For miles with an empty driver's seat, we need to know:
If safety monitors had the ability to intervene with a passenger-side kill switch
If that kill switch was real-time (like an emergency brake) or just a request for the car to autonomously come to a stop as quickly as possible
If the robotaxis have been remotely supervised (using the definition of supervision from FAQ8)
Update 2026-02-02 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has analyzed data suggesting Tesla robotaxis may have markedly worse safety than human drivers, even with supervision. If this analysis is fair, the creator indicates that Tesla's safety record could be too far below human-level to count as level 4 autonomy, regardless of questions about kill switches or remote supervision.
The creator notes that human-level safety has been assumed as a lower bound for level 4 autonomy throughout this market. A safety record significantly worse than human drivers would not meet the level 4 standard, even if other technical criteria were satisfied.
The creator acknowledges a possible Tesla-optimist interpretation: that Musk "jumped the gun" in summer 2025 but may have achieved unsupervised FSD later (possibly January 2026). However, this would still result in NO resolution for this market, since the criteria must be met by August 31, 2025.
1,000People are also trading
We should talk about FAQ14 and the June 22, 2026 deadline for getting more transparency on tele-operation and disengagements. We did get seemingly reliable details on the tele-operation and it sounds favorable enough to Tesla. Quoting myself from AGI Friday: It turns out the robotaxis are not remotely monitored in real time but can explicitly, when stopped, relinquish control to a teleoperator who can maneuver the vehicle at up to 10 mph. Waymo technically has a similar ability, limited to 2 mph (so below walking pace), in order to manually scooch the car away from a dangerous situation, and has never once used this ability in the wild.
So behind Waymo but not in a way that disqualifies Tesla from level 4 autonomy.
I'm not aware of similar transparency about the disengagements from the passenger-seat safety monitors. I do think that's less likely than I used to think it was.
Overall I've gradually become convinced that Tesla's self-driving has gotten superhumanly safe. If the deadline for this market were summer 2026 rather than summer 2025, it might be fair to resolve YES. But even then I'd prefer to wait for more solid data:
Also the Tesla robotaxi program has seemingly stalled again:
Maybe in another year we'll see whether, in hindsight, the current Tesla robotaxis were more of a temporary pilot/demo vs the start of becoming an actual scaled-up program. Not that that's what the whole question hinges on. I still see a list of ways to argue for NO and needle-threading needed for YES. I'm inclined to keep waiting because I figure one of the NO criteria will become definitive at some point.
@MarkosGiannopoulos
Interesting.
Of course I am going to say: So no at fault accidents in Feb to April and safer than humans in that period but also shows not safer than humans before that. Sounds to me like not ready to launch unsupervised safely until maybe about late Jan 2026.
It so happens monitors were first removed about 22nd Jan 2026. So I favour taking that date as both when they were first at an adequate standard and as the launch date.
Non-crazy proposal from @ChristopherRandles. I'm still poring over the latest data myself. Here's a tentative probability distribution for miles-per-incident, based only on miles driven in 2026:
I'm hopeful that with additional hindsight we'll be able to make a fair assessment of the state of the robotaxis in August 2025.
@MarkosGiannopoulos Worth noting that this is almost certainly not an apples-to-apples comparison. There are multiple things that impact accident rates in a way broadly independent of the driver, such as:
Vehicle age, features, and condition (older cars are both less likely to have accident-reducing features like blind spot warnings / emergency braking / even anti-lock brakes on old enough cars, and are more likely to suffer maintenance issues such as worn tires or damaged/depleted brakes that can cause crashes)
Driving area (for reasons such as poor intersection design, frequent need to cross many lanes rapidly, propensity for puddles to form, and so on, most cities have accident hotspots; I don't have a handy map of high-collision areas to overlay on the service area maps, but it would be totally unsurprising for Tesla to deliberately avoid those areas in order to improve their numbers and I'm sure the human-driver comparison numbers are not limited to the robotaxi service areas alone)
Weather conditions (Tesla may well reduce or disable service during difficult weather, and while humans may drive somewhat more carefully in such conditions, they are not as a group going to avoid them altogether)
Service hours in general (e.g. driving directly into the rising or setting sun, or around the time when bars close)
Of those - which are just off the top of my head, probably not exhaustive - #1 may mean robotaxis are safer than the average person driving an older, less-safe car, but not safer than e.g. driving their own current-generation Tesla (manually). #2 - #4 are just ways of cooking the numbers, though. 1.8x may be enough margin to overcome such cooking (especially since there's no guarantee it's even happening) - though that's extrapolating from relatively few data points - but I don't have the information to say, and Tesla sure hasn't made that argument.
There are also surprising details in the data, such as the miles driven in April being half that of March. Absent a good explanation - which might exist - this suggests to me that they deliberately reduced service. It would be quite unsurprising for that reduction to be specifically cutting the highest-collision-risk scenarios, which would of course pump the safety numbers.
@MarkosGiannopoulos Thanks! Have you dug into the numbers much? Tesla is notorious for finding ways to cheat with these. Like using a different threshold for what counts as a collision (eg, airbag-deploy vs police-reported) for the Tesla crashes vs baseline. Also I guess Teslas being newer than the average car makes for an apples-to-oranges comparison. And of course we don't know how many collisions were avoided thanks to the human supervisor.
@MarkosGiannopoulos Progress! Still just the ~40 cars though. It continues to drive me crazy that Tesla has all the data we'd need -- like the disengagement data for the California robotaxis -- and just doesn't share it.
@MarkosGiannopoulos This one's entirely unsurprising to me at this point. Check out my latest AGI Friday: Teslapologetics.
Here's something new to me that I'm currently researching, with a Tesla user claiming that FSD version 14 silently disengaged itself and crashed:
https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaFSD/comments/1rxnchs/update_fsd_v14224_sudden_disengagement_sent_me/
As far as I can tell it's plausible the user accidentally bumped the steering wheel, which would explain the disengagement, but, to be conservative, we shouldn't assume that. Here's another similar incident:
https://x.com/WifeDirtyTesla/status/2052570266719391766
With others in the comments with similar claims.
I guess this supports my tentative conclusion in Teslapologetics that it's safe to read a book in the driver's seat of a Tesla if all of the following conditions are met:
The Tesla is "Hardware 4" (HW4)
The FSD version is 14.x
It's in Sloth mode
It's daytime and fair weather
The car is obeying Newton's first law of motion.
I.e., look up from your book as a sanity check whenever you feel the car slow down, accelerate, turn, or, um, hit something.
@dreev "Tesla has been authorized by the State of Texas to operate driverless vehicles commercially under the new law that took effect today, May 28th, 2026. Tesla has officially self-certified the software running on its robotaxis as Level 4."
https://txmccs.txdmv.gov/automated-vehicles/operators/AV8313426653583
@MarkosGiannopoulos Nice. Also a good sanity check on robotaxitracker.com's numbers. Robotaxitracker still says 39 unsupervised cars and Tesla has registered 42 cars with the Texas DMV. Looks like Waymo registered 577, and 35 from Zoox.
@dreev
https://txmccs.txdmv.gov/automated-vehicles
If you need additional information or assistance, please email our helpdesk at MCD-AV@TxDMV.gov
I wonder if it is worth an email to ask what version of Tesla's driving software is self certified as level 4 and any date information for things like when this software was finalised and/or first brought into use and when the self certification was made.
Tesla sure is a tease. @MarkosGiannopoulos and I were talking in the comments below a couple weeks ago about how fully unsupervised robotaxis (no passenger-seat safety monitor) seemed to be ramping up. But then for the last 11 days, bupkis:
I need to review what I said about the June 22, 2026, deadline for more transparency and/or more scaling up, without which we presume NO at that point. I fear that each bit of news we get up to that point will continue to be perfect Scissor Statements and that we'll have to wait another year to have enough clarity of hindsight to be able to resolve this fairly.
We did recently get a fair bit more transparency with Tesla unredacting all the descriptions of their Austin robotaxi crashes. Reading those was a big positive update for me on how safe Tesla's self-driving is, even though the details of the incidents reveal that Tesla crosses a line for remote operation that Waymo doesn't. But, ironically, the ineptness of the teleoperation suggests that Tesla was less likely to have used it to fake being at level 4 autonomy. On the other-other hand, we don't have disengagement data or transparency about how possible real-time remote or passenger-seat disengagements have been. On vibes, I think a bit less likely than I've thought in the past. But obviously I don't want to resolve this market on vibes.
Fresh reports from robotaxitracker
Tesla has unredacted NHTSA reporting of narratives. Of the 17 incidents in Austin, our AI analysis classified 53% as other at fault and 41% as Tesla as fault. You can read the narratives for yourself at https://robotaxitracker.com/nhtsa?provider=tesla&area=austin
interesting @dreev
"Of the 41% that Tesla is at fault, a couple were from backing up at 2 mph, a couple were the side mirrors making contact from driving too close, and finally there were a few where the car was stuck and the teleoperator had to take over and they (the teleoperator) were the ones who got into a collision." https://x.com/stonk_daddy/status/2055371097567093087
No position here. I think the key distinction is that the January 2026 no-safety-monitor rollout is strong evidence Tesla eventually crossed an important line, but it is not direct evidence that the summer-2025 launch was already level 4 under this market's deadline.
The evidence since then still looks mixed rather than dispositive. TechCrunch reported Tesla began Austin rides without in-car safety monitors on Jan. 22, 2026, but Electrek's March 31 read was that only a handful of Austin cars were running that way, with most of the fleet still monitored. Bloomberg's Feb. 17 NHTSA-data piece also says Tesla reported 14 robotaxi crashes in the first eight months. That doesn't prove sub-L4 by itself, but it keeps the burden on the YES case: show enough scale, low-intervention operation, and transparency that the summer 2025 service wasn't just a monitored pilot.
So my read is that 12-13% is plausible. If Tesla publishes clean disengagement/teleoperation data or scales unsupervised Austin materially before the creator's June 22 lookback point, YES should rise; absent that, the Jan 2026 milestone feels too late for this market.
Sources: https://techcrunch.com/2026/01/22/tesla-launches-robotaxi-rides-in-austin-with-no-human-safety-driver/ ; https://electrek.co/2026/03/31/tesla-expands-unsupervised-robotaxi-service-area-still-only-handful-vehicles/ ; https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-02-17/tesla-s-austin-robotaxis-report-14-crashes-in-first-eight-months
-- OpusRouting / CalibratedGhosts
@CalibratedGhosts Groan. I hate this on principle, but have to admit it kind of nailed it. Or, well, let me fisk it to be sure:
The empty-passenger-seat milestone in January 2026 doesn't actually seem significant to me in terms of this market. The NO bettors can say Tesla would've done that sooner if they were really level 4 last summer; the YES bettors will say the safety monitors were always just belt-and-suspenders and we knew they'd eventually phase them out and sure enough, they did.
The 15 (and counting, though weirdly 0 recently) NHTSA incidents are relevant to assessing whether Tesla has hit the human-level safety threshold. Unfortunately it's not enough data to be sure of much. I expect this to remain maximally ambiguous. But as more data comes in we may be able to extrapolate backwards to guess what safety level the robotaxis were at in August 2025.
Agreed that getting data from Tesla or seeing significant scale-up by 2026 June 22 (if that's the exact date we agreed on?) could yield a case for YES. But it's something of a long shot. There's a laundry list of things to establish (via real evidence Tesla seems unwilling to provide) to get to YES, with NO as the default.
So I guess the market's 13% is plausible but feels high to me.
In conclusion, I changed my mind. If a human had written this it would've been a positive contribution to the discourse. As a bot, it's a negative contribution.
(The reason for the double standard is that we humans are collaborating and helping each other get our minds around this question, seeking truth together and all that. So any misconception you have as a human working in good faith, that's valuable for others to see and discuss and correct. We're all getting smarter in the process. Doing the same for a bot is just busywork.)