News
Comma.ai’s George Hotz talks Tesla Autopilot, AI Vision and the future of self-driving cars
One of the most outspoken players in the race to autonomous cars has some strong thoughts on where the future of self-driving technology is headed. George Hotz, the CEO and founder of Comma.ai, believes heavily in a future where AI-driven computer vision powers our self-driving cars. I sat down with Hotz on the NextMobility podcast to discuss everything from Tesla’s Autopilot to Comma.ai’s suite of products that take aim at converting the regular car into a self-driving vehicle. Listen below, or download it on Apple Podcasts or on other platforms.
So how do we get there? According to Hotz, computer vision technology is already good enough to be comparable to LiDAR. The real problem is getting AI to understand the environment and make intelligent decisions. Predictive complexity and being able to reason what course of action is needed is the challenging part of self-driving vehicles, George explains.
“That’s the easy part (Computer vision), the hard part is- okay I’m trying to merge up here, how is my model going to behave.” – George Hotz
Hotz famously showed a working prototype of his self-driving technology in a Bloomberg Businessweek interview with Ashley Vance in December 2015. Since then the company’s strategy has changed along with its technology. Hotz open-sourced their self-driving software last November and called it Openpilot after the NHTSA threatened to shut down his project.
Hotz has avoided dealing with regulators by creating a Comma.ai hardware ‘ecosystem’ this year that can run the open source software. Rather than simply making hardware that allows the vehicle to drive autonomously, the hardware creates an interface to allow computers to interact with the vehicle in several ways.
Comma.ai’s new product line consists of the EON dashcam that also doubles as a navigation and music interface, the Panda OBD-II connector, and a Giraffe connector to seamless tie into a vehicle’s system. Using all three products, one can run music, navigation and even their Openpilot driving agent on the vehicle.
Comma.ai’s new EON dashcam does a heck of a lot more than record video. (Photo: Comma.ai)
In 2015, Hotz considered ‘contracting’ with Tesla to help develop their Autopilot software, but then decided to pursue the technology on his own. I asked Hotz why he thought Tesla has had trouble retaining leaders in the division and he shared his theory.
“Elon has an idea in his head that it (self-driving vehicles powered by computer vision and AI) should be easy, and he’s right- it absolutely should be easy. So every time someone doesn’t make it seem easy- he fires them. Which is actually a probably good strategy. So what’s the problem… it’s just actually implementing all the stuff, I mean implementation is hard. It’s not the theory, the theory is all there,” said Hotz on the NextMobility Podcast.
Hotz also believes that other automakers are still very behind Tesla in terms of vehicle architecture. While other companies are launching long-range electric vehicles or planning their development, they still have yet to compete with Tesla’s technological advancements.
“They (other automotive companies) are going to be like, holy crap- we are five years behind… the car manufacturers still have no idea how far they are behind. The Model S has sophisticated compute, OTA, Linux boxes, a large touchscreen, and a modern user interface. What does the Chevy bolt have?”
Who do you think will win the self-driving game?
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
