| ▲ | asdff 5 days ago | |
It makes sense why they wouldn't from a game theory standpoint. Why not shift liability? Waymo would too if they could set up such a structure in a way that makes sense. It is a little different for a cab where a 13 year old could call one on moms cellphone vs a car you buy outright and is registered to a licensed driver who pays for the insurance on it. Still, my point is all this has nothing to do with the tech. It is all regulatory/legal checkers. | ||
| ▲ | diebeforei485 5 days ago | parent [-] | |
> Why not shift liability? Because being a passenger in a driverless vehicle is a much better user experience than being a driver. You can be on a zoom call, sleep, watch a movie or TV show or scroll TikTok, get some work done on your computer, wear a VR headset and be in a different world, etc etc. Tesla would make a lot more money, and could charge a lot more for FSD. They aren't doing that yet because they aren't ready yet. It's why they still have humans in the robotaxi service. There are no doubts in my mind that they will do it probably next year. The latest version of FSD on the new cars is very, very impressive. | ||