News
Tesla Autopilot Abusers need to be held accountable, but how?
Tesla Autopilot Abusers need to be held accountable for their actions. For years, Tesla engineers have worked long and hard to improve Autopilot and Full Self-Driving. Hundreds of thousands of hours of work have been put into these driving assistance programs, whether it would be through software, coding, and programming or through other mediums. However, years of hard work, diligence, and improvement can be wiped away from the public’s perception in a minute with one foolish, irresponsible, and selfish act that can be derived from an owner’s need to show off their car’s semi-autonomous functionalities to others.
The most recent example of this is with Param Sharma, a self-proclaimed “rich as f***” social media influencer who has spent the last few days sparring with Tesla enthusiasts through his selfish and undeniably dangerous act of jumping in the backseat while his car is operating on Autopilot. Sharma has been seen on numerous occasions sitting in the backseat of his car while the vehicle drives itself. It is almost a sure thing that Sharma is using several cheat devices in his Tesla to bypass typical barriers the company has installed to ensure drivers are paying attention. These include a steering wheel sensor, seat sensors, and seatbelt sensors, all of which must be controlled or connected by the driver at the time of Autopilot’s use. We have seen several companies and some owners use DIY hack devices to bypass these safety thresholds. These are hazardous acts for several reasons, the most important being the lack of appreciation for other human lives.
This is a preview from our weekly newsletter. Each week I go ‘Beyond the News’ and handcraft a special edition that includes my thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future.
While Tesla fans and enthusiasts are undoubtedly confident in the abilities of Autopilot and Full Self-Driving, they will also admit that the use of these suites needs to be used responsibly and as the company describes. Tesla has never indicated that its vehicles can drive themselves, which can be characterized as “Level 5 Autonomy.” The company also indicates that drivers must keep their hands on the steering wheel at all times. There are several safety features that Tesla has installed to ensure that these are recognized by the car’s operator. If these safety precautions are not followed, the driver runs the risk of being put in “Autopilot Jail,” where they will not have the feature available to them for the remainder of their drive.
As previously mentioned, there are cheat devices for all of these safety features, however. This is where Tesla cannot necessarily control what goes on, and law enforcement, in my opinion, is more responsible than the company actually is. It is law enforcement’s job to stop this from happening if an officer sees it occurring. Nobody should be able to climb into the backseat of their vehicle while it is driving. A least not until many years of testing are completed, and many miles of fully autonomous functionalities are proven to be accurate and robust enough to handle real-world traffic.
The reason Tesla should step in, in my opinion, and create a list of repeat offenders who have proven themselves to be irresponsible and not trustworthy enough for Autopilot and FSD, is because if an accident happens while these influencers or everyday drivers are taking advantage of Autopilot’s capabilities, Tesla, along with every other company working to develop Level 5 Autonomous vehicles, takes a huge step backward. Not only will Tesla feel the most criticism from the media, but it will be poured on as the company is taking no real steps to prevent it from happening. Unbelievably, we in the Tesla community know what the vehicles can and what safety precautions have been installed to prevent these incidents from happening. However, mainstream media outlets do not have an explicit and in-depth understanding of Tesla’s capabilities. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that they have no intentions of improving their comprehension of what Tesla does daily.
While talking to someone about this subject on Thursday, they highlighted that this isn’t Tesla’s concern. And while I believe that it really isn’t, I don’t think that’s an acceptable answer to solve all of the abuses going on with the cars. Tesla should take matters into its own hands, and I believe it should because it has done it before. Elon Musk and Tesla decided to expand the FSD Beta testing pool recently, but the company also revoked access to some people who have decided that they would not use the functionality properly. Why is this any different in the case of AP/FSD? Just because someone pays for something doesn’t mean the company cannot revoke access to it. If you pay for access to play video games online and hack or use abusive language, there are major consequences. Your console can get banned, and you would be required to buy a completely new unit if you ever wished to play online video games again.
While unfortunate, Tesla will have to make a stand against those who abuse Autopilot, in my opinion. There needs to be heavier consequences by the company simply because an accident caused by abuse or misuse of the functionalities could set the company back several years and put their work to solve Level 5 Autonomy in a vacuum. There is entirely too much at stake here to even begin to let people off the hook. I believe that Tesla’s actions should follow law enforcement action. When police officers find someone violating the proper use of the system, the normal reckless driving charges should be held up, and there should be increasingly worse consequences for every subsequent offense. Perhaps after the third offense, Tesla could be contacted and could have AP/FSD taken off of the car. There could be a probationary period or a zero-tolerance policy; it would all be up to the company.
I believe that this needs to be taken so seriously, and there need to be consequences because of the blatant disregard for other people and their work. The irresponsible use of AP/FSD by childish drivers means that Tesla’s hard work is being jeopardized by horrible behavior. While many people don’t enjoy driving, it still requires responsibility, and everyone on the road is entrusting you to drive responsibly. It could cost your life or, even worse, someone else’s.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
I use this newsletter to share my thoughts on what is going on in the Tesla world. If you want to talk to me directly, you can email me or reach me on Twitter. I don’t bite, be sure to reach out!
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
