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!
SpaceX has revealed the date for the maiden voyage of Starship v3, its newest and most advanced version of the rocket yet.
Starship v3 represents a significant leap forward. At 124 meters tall when fully stacked, it stands taller than previous versions and boasts substantial upgrades.
The vehicle incorporates next-generation Raptor 3 engines, which deliver higher thrust, improved reliability, and simplified designs with fewer parts. Both the Super Heavy booster (Booster 19) and the Starship upper stage (Ship 39) feature these enhancements, along with structural improvements for greater payload capacity—exceeding 100 metric tons to low Earth orbit in reusable configuration.
SpaceX and its CEO Elon Musk have announced that the company aims to push the first launch of Starship v3 this Thursday. Musk included some clips of past Starship launches with the announcement.
Now targeting launch as early as Thursday, May 21 → https://t.co/2gZQUxS6mm
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) May 19, 2026
First Starship V3 launch later this week! pic.twitter.com/JFX4CrSfnY
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 19, 2026
There are a lot of improvements to Starship v3 from past builds. Key hardware changes include a more robust heat shield, upgraded avionics, and modifications optimized for orbital refueling, a critical technology for future missions to the Moon and Mars. This flight marks the first launch from Starbase’s second orbital pad, allowing parallel operations and accelerating the cadence of tests.
This will be the 12th Starship launch for SpaceX. Flight 12 objectives include a full ascent profile, hot-staging separation, in-space engine relights, and reentry testing. The booster is expected to perform a controlled splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico, while the ship will deploy 20 Starlink simulator satellites and a pair of modified Starlink V3 units before attempting reentry.
Success would validate V3’s design for operational use, paving the way for rapid reusability and higher flight rates.
The rapid evolution from V2 to V3 underscores SpaceX’s iterative approach. Previous flights demonstrated booster catches, ship landings, and heat shield advancements. V3 builds on these with nearly every component refined, supported by an expanding production line at Starbase that churns out vehicles at an unprecedented pace.
Starship V3 is here putting SpaceX closer to Mars than it has ever been
This launch comes amid growing momentum for SpaceX’s ambitious goals. Starship is central to NASA’s Artemis program for lunar landings and Elon Musk’s vision of making humanity multiplanetary. A successful V3 debut would boost confidence in achieving orbital refueling and crewed missions in the coming years.
As excitement builds, enthusiasts and engineers alike await liftoff. Weather and technical readiness will determine the exact timing, but the community is optimistic. Starship V3 is poised to push the boundaries of spaceflight once again, bringing reusable interplanetary transport closer to reality.
Elon Musk broke his silence regarding the jury decision to throw out the case against OpenAI and Sam Altman. The Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI frontman has already indicated that an appeal will be filed regarding the decision, which went against him yesterday.
A Federal jury dismissed this high-profile lawsuit after less than two hours of deliberation due to a statute-of-limitations issue.
In a strongly worded post on X on May 18, Musk addressed the federal jury’s dismissal of his high-profile lawsuit against OpenAI, vowing to appeal the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision, according to Musk, was centered not on the substantive claims but on a statute-of-limitations technicality.
Musk’s lawsuit, filed in 2024, accused OpenAI co-founders Sam Altman and Greg Brockman of breaching the organization’s original nonprofit mission. OpenAI was established in 2015 as a non-profit dedicated to developing artificial intelligence for the benefit of all humanity, with Musk as a key early donor and co-founder before departing in 2018.
Musk alleged that Altman and Brockman improperly shifted the company toward a for-profit model, enriched themselves through massive valuations and partnerships (including with Microsoft), and betrayed founding agreements.
In his post, Musk emphasized that the judge and jury “never actually ruled on the merits of the case, just on a calendar technicality.” He stated unequivocally: “There is no question to anyone following the case in detail that Altman & Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity. The only question is WHEN they did it!”
Regarding the OpenAI case, the judge & jury never actually ruled on the merits of the case, just on a calendar technicality.
There is no question to anyone following the case in detail that Altman & Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity. The only question…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 18, 2026
Musk argued that allowing such actions to stand without review sets a dangerous precedent. “I will be filing an appeal with the Ninth Circuit, because creating a precedent to loot charities is incredibly destructive to charitable giving in America,” he wrote. He reiterated OpenAI’s founding purpose: “OpenAI was founded to benefit all of humanity.”
The jury’s unanimous advisory verdict found that Musk’s claims of breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment were filed outside California’s three-year statute of limitations. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers adopted the finding and dismissed the case. OpenAI hailed the outcome as vindication, while Musk’s legal team immediately signaled plans to appeal.
The trial, which featured testimony from Musk, Altman, Brockman, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, and others, exposed deep rifts in Silicon Valley over AI’s direction.
Musk has long warned that profit-driven AI development, especially with closed models and powerful corporate ties, risks endangering humanity—contrasting it with OpenAI’s original open, safety-focused charter. OpenAI countered that the suit stemmed from business rivalry and that Musk himself had explored for-profit paths earlier.
Musk’s appeal could prolong the saga, potentially affecting OpenAI’s valuation (reportedly over $800 billion) and IPO ambitions. Supporters view his stance as defending nonprofit integrity, while critics see it as sour grapes from a competitor whose own xAI is racing in the AI arena.
Regardless of the legal outcome, the case has spotlighted critical questions about trust, governance, and mission drift in the rapidly evolving AI industry. Musk’s willingness to fight on suggests this chapter is far from closed, with broader implications for how charitable organizations—and the tech giants born from them—operate in the future.
Elon Musk
NASA updated Artemis III and SpaceX’s role just got more complicated
SpaceX’s Starship is the key to NASA’s Moon plan and the timeline is already slipping.
SpaceX has been at the center of NASA’s Moon ambitions for five years, and the updated Artemis III plan recently released by NASA makes that relationship more visible than ever. In April 2021, NASA awarded SpaceX a $2.89 billion contract to develop the Starship Human Landing System, selecting it as the sole provider to land astronauts on the Moon under Artemis III. Blue Origin filed legal protests, lost, and eventually received its own contract, but SpaceX was always the program’s primary lander contractor.
The original plan called for Starship to land two astronauts on the lunar south pole. That mission slipped as Starship development ran behind schedule, and in February 2026, NASA officially revised the Artemis III architecture entirely. The mission will now remain in low Earth orbit and serve as a crewed rendezvous and docking test between the Orion spacecraft and both the SpaceX Starship HLS pathfinder and Blue Origin’s Blue Moon Mark 2 pathfinder, with the actual Moon landing pushed to Artemis IV in 2028.
What makes SpaceX’s position particularly significant is the direct line between this week’s Starship V3 launch and the Artemis timeline. The Starship HLS is essentially a modified version of the V3 upper stage, meaning SpaceX cannot realistically prepare a lander for a 2027 docking test until it has demonstrated that the base vehicle flies reliably at scale. Flight 12, targeting this week, is the first data point in that sequence.
NASA has spent nearly $7 billion on Human Landing System development since awarding contracts to SpaceX and Blue Origin in 2021 and 2023, and NASA administrator Jared Isaacman has indicated a desire to drive down costs going forward. As Teslarati reported, before Starship HLS can put anyone on the Moon it has to solve a problem no rocket has demonstrated at scale, which is refueling in orbit, requiring approximately ten tanker launches worth of propellant loaded into a depot before the lander has enough fuel to reach the lunar surface.
The Artemis III mission described by NASA is essentially a stress test for every system that needs to work before any of that happens.
SpaceX has gone from a launch contractor to the single most critical hardware provider in America’s return-to-the-Moon program. With an IPO targeting a $1.75 trillion valuation and Elon Musk’s compensation tied directly to Mars colonization, the pressure on every Starship milestone between now and 2028 has never been higher.
SpaceX reveals date for maiden Starship v3 launch
Elon Musk breaks silence on OpenAI trial decision
