News
Tesla’s camera-based driver monitoring system exists; pretending it doesn’t makes roads less safe
Tesla’s FSD Beta program has begun its expansion to more users. And while the system is only being distributed today to drivers with a perfect Safety Score, the advanced driver-assist system is expected to be released to users with a rating of 99 and below in the near future. True to form, with the expansion of FSD Beta also came the predictable wave of complaints and pearl-clutching from critics, some of whom still refuse to acknowledge that Tesla is now utilizing its vehicles’ in-cabin camera to bolster its driver-monitoring systems.
Just recently, the NHTSA sent a letter to Tesla asking for an explanation why the company rolled out some improvements to Autopilot without issuing a safety recall. According to the NHTSA, Tesla should have filed for a recall notice if the company found a “safety defect” on its vehicles. What was missed by the NHTSA was that the Autopilot update, which enabled the company’s vehicles to slow down and alert their drivers when an emergency vehicle is detected, was done as a proactive measure, not as a response to a defect.
Consumer Reports Weighs In
Weighing in on the issue, Consumer Reports argued that ultimately, over-the-air software updates do not really address the main weakness of Teslas, which is driver-monitoring. The magazine admitted that Tesla’s driver-assist system’s object detection and response is better than comparable systems, but Kelly Funkhouser, head of connected and automated vehicle testing for Consumer Reports, argued that it is this very reason why the magazine has safety concerns with Tesla’s cars.
“In our tests, Tesla continues to perform well at object detection and response compared to other vehicles. It’s actually because the driver assistance system performs so well that we are concerned about overreliance on it. The most important change Tesla needs to make is to add safeguards—such as an effective direct driver monitoring system—to ensure the driver is aware of their surroundings and able to take over in these types of scenarios,” Funkhouser said.
Jake Fisher, senior director of Consumer Reports‘ Auto Test Center, also shared his own take on the issue, particularly around some Autopilot crashes involving stationary emergency vehicles on the side of the road. “CR’s position is that crashes like these can be avoided if there is an effective driver monitoring system, and that’s the underlying problem here,” Fisher said, adding that over-the-air software updates are typically not sent to address defects.
Tesla’s camera-based DMS
Funkhouser and Fisher’s reference to direct driver monitoring systems is interesting because the exact feature has been steadily rolling out to Tesla’s vehicles over the past months. It is quite strange that Consumer Reports seems unaware about this, considering that the magazine has Teslas in its fleet. Tesla, after all, has been rolling out its camera-based driver monitoring system to its fleet since late May 2021. A rollout of the camera-based system to radar-equipped vehicles was done in the previous quarter.
Tesla’s Release Notes for its camera-based driver monitoring function describes how the function works. “The cabin camera above your rearview mirror can now detect and alert driver inattentiveness while Autopilot is engaged. Camera data does not leave the car itself, which means the system cannot save or transmit information unless data sharing is enabled,” Tesla noted in its Release Notes.
What is interesting is that Consumer Reports‘ Jake Fisher was made aware of the function when it launched last May. In a tweet, Fisher even noted that the camera-based system was not “just about preventing abuse;” it also “has the potential to save lives by preventing distraction.” This shows that Consumer Reports, or at least the head of its Auto Test Center, has been fully aware that Tesla’s in-cabin cameras are now steadily being used for driver monitoring purposes. This makes his recent comments about Tesla’s lack of driver monitoring quite strange.
Legacy or Bust?
That being said, Consumer Reports appears to have a prepared narrative once it acknowledges the existence of Tesla’s camera-based driver-monitoring system. Back in March, the magazine posted an article criticizing Tesla for its in-cabin cameras, titled “Tesla’s In-Car Cameras Raise Privacy Concerns.” In the article, the magazine noted that the EV maker could simply be using its in-cabin cameras for its own benefit. “
“We have already seen Tesla blaming the driver for not paying attention immediately after news reports of a crash while a driver is using Autopilot. Now, Tesla can use video footage to prove that a driver is distracted rather than addressing the reasons why the driver wasn’t paying attention in the first place,” Funkhouser said.
Considering that Consumer Reports seems to be critical of Tesla’s use (or non-use for that matter) of its vehicles’ in-cabin cameras, it appears that the magazine is arguing that the only effective and safe driver monitoring systems are those utilized by veteran automakers like General Motors for its Super Cruise system. However, even the advanced eye-tracking technology used by GM for Super Cruise, which Consumer Reports overtly praises, has been proven to be susceptible to driver abuse.
This was proven by Car and Driver, when the motoring publication fooled Super Cruise into operating without a driver using a pair of gag glasses with eyes painted on them. One could easily criticize Car and Driver for publicly showcasing a vulnerability in Super Cruise’s driver monitoring systems, but one has to remember that Consumer Reports also published an extensive guide on how to fool Tesla’s Autopilot into operating without a driver using a series of tricks and a defeat device.
Salivating for the first FSD Beta accident
What is quite unfortunate amidst the criticism surrounding the expansion of FSD Beta is the fact that skeptics seem to be salivating for the first accident involving the advanced driver-assist system. Fortunately, Tesla seems to be aware of this, which may be the reason why the Beta is only being released to the safest drivers in the fleet. Tesla does plan on releasing the system to drivers with lower safety scores, but it would not be a surprise if the company ends up adopting an even more cautious approach when it does so.
That being said, incidents on the road are inevitable, and one can only hope that when something does happen, it would not be too easy for an organization such as Consumer Reports to run away with a narrative that echoes falsehoods that its own executives have recognized publicly — such as the potential benefits of Tesla’s camera-based driver monitoring system. Tesla’s FSD suite and Autopilot are designed as safety features, after all, and so far, they are already making the company’s fleet of vehicles less susceptible to accidents on the road. Over time, and as more people participate in the FSD Beta program, Autopilot and Full Self-Driving would only get safer.
Tesla is not above criticism, of course. There are several aspects of the company that deserves to be called out. Service and quality control, as well as the treatment of longtime Tesla customers who purchased FSD cars with MCU1 units, are but a few of them. However, it’s difficult to defend the notion that FSD and Autopilot are making the roads less safe. Autopilot and FSD have already saved numerous lives, and they have the potential to save countless more once they are fully developed. So why block their development and rollout?
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
SpaceX confirmed today that it has officially signed its third massive compute deal, providing compute at its Colossus data center in Southaven, Tennessee.
Reflection AI will gain immediate access to NVIDIA GB300 chips at SpaceX’s Colossus 2 data center. In return, Reflection will pay SpaceX $150 million per month starting on July 1, with total payments reaching approximately $6.3 billion if the contract runs through its duration, which is until 2029. Either party can terminate the agreement with 90 days’ notice after the initial three-month period.
CNBC first reported the deal.
🚨 SpaceXAI has agreed to a new compute deal with Reflection AI.
Reflection gets access to NIVIDIA GB300s, and will pay $150M per month to SpaceXAI for the compute. pic.twitter.com/bNPare8U5u
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 22, 2026
This latest partnership highlights SpaceX’s strategy of commercializing its massive Colossus supercomputing infrastructure, originally developed to power Elon Musk’s Grok AI models. The company has rapidly expanded its customer base in the AI sector following its February 2026 merger with xAI, a transaction that valued the combined entity at $1.25 trillion.
SpaceX has previously signed significant compute deals with other major players.
It granted Anthropic exclusive access to the full capacity of its Colossus 1 data center, which exceeds 300 megawatts and includes over 220,000 NVIDIA GPUs. Details from SpaceX’s IPO filings indicate Anthropic will pay $1.25 billion per month through May 2029, potentially generating around $45 billion over the term of the deal.
Additionally, Google agreed to pay SpaceX $920 million per month for compute capacity from October 2026 through June 2029. This 32-month period will provide Google access to roughly 110,000 NVIDIA GPUs, along with supporting processors and memory. Capacity ramps up through September at a reduced fee, with termination options after the first year.
SpaceXA also established arrangements for computing power with Cursor, an AI coding startup. SpaceX acquired them in a $60 billion all-stock deal.
These arrangements position SpaceX’s collective position as an AI infrastructure powerhouse with high-margin revenue potential. The Google deal alone could generate nearly $29.5 billion over its term, while the Reflection contract adds another $6.3 billion.
Combined with the Anthropic arrangement, SpaceX stands to realize tens of billions in revenue from compute leasing in the coming years, which diversifies beyond SpaceX’s traditional rocket launches and Starlink operation.
The deals underscore growing demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity amid chip shortages and surging model development needs. Reflection, valued at $25 billion and focused on “American open intelligence” with government and national security ties, cited recent restrictions on closed models as validation for open-source approaches.
For SpaceX, the partnerships transform capital-intensive data centers into flexible revenue sources while supporting its broader AI ambitions after the company has gone public.
It is safe to say SpaceX won’t be going for electric rockets anytime soon.
In a characteristically blunt reply on X, SpaceX frontman Elon Musk stated, “Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible,” following reports that MSCI had assigned SpaceX its lowest possible ESG rating of CCC.
The assessment, issued just this past week, coinciding closely with SpaceX’s public market debut, placed the company on par with nations like Russia in sustainability scoring and cited significant risks in environmental, social, and governance areas.
MSCI flagged SpaceX’s exposure to rocket emissions and other operational impacts, alongside governance concerns such as concentrated control by Musk and limited shareholder protections. Musk’s terse comment directly addressed the environmental pillar, underscoring a core physical constraint that ESG frameworks often overlook when evaluating high-thrust industries.
Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 21, 2026
Electric propulsion systems do exist and are widely used in space. Ion thrusters and Hall-effect thrusters accelerate ionized propellant, typically xenon or krypton, using electric fields, achieving very high specific impulse, often exceeding 3,000 seconds compared to roughly 300–450 seconds for chemical rockets.
This efficiency makes them ideal for satellite station-keeping, orbit raising, and deep-space missions where low thrust over long durations is sufficient. SpaceX’s own Starlink satellites employ electric propulsion for these purposes.
However, launching from Earth’s surface demands something entirely different: enormous thrust delivered rapidly to overcome gravity and atmospheric drag. A typical orbital-class booster must generate thrust far exceeding its weight, often in the millions of Newtons within seconds.
Chemical rockets achieve this through exothermic combustion of dense propellants, producing high-mass-flow, high-velocity exhaust. Electric systems, by contrast, expel very small amounts of mass at extremely high speeds. Generating equivalent thrust would require impractical onboard power levels, massive energy storage or generation systems, and prohibitive added mass, rendering the approach infeasible with current or near-term technology.
Musk has previously expressed a similar sentiment, noting a desire for electric orbital rockets while acknowledging the inescapable requirements of Newton’s third law and energy delivery. The distinction is clear: electric propulsion excels once a vehicle is already in space; it cannot replace the high-thrust chemical phase required to reach orbit from the ground.
The episode illustrates broader critiques of ESG ratings. Proponents argue they incentivize better risk management and long-term sustainability. Detractors, including Musk—who has previously called ESG a “scam”—contend that such metrics can penalize essential activities when no practical alternative exists, potentially discouraging innovation in sectors like space access.
Elon Musk dubs the S&P 500 ESG as “outrageous scam” after Tesla gets booted from index
SpaceX has sought to mitigate launch-related impacts through reusability: Falcon 9 boosters have flown more than 30 times in some cases, dramatically lowering the manufacturing and emissions burden per kilogram delivered to orbit. Starship’s design further emphasizes rapid reusability and methane propellant, which can theoretically be produced via sustainable pathways.
Ultimately, Musk’s remark serves as a reminder that certain engineering realities persist regardless of scoring systems. As humanity expands its presence in space for communications, science, and exploration, balancing genuine environmental progress with technological necessity remains a central challenge.
ESG frameworks may evolve, but the fundamental limits of electric launch propulsion are unlikely to change soon.
Tesla just trademarked ‘MEGAPOD’ with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), its latest move in what seems to be a hint that the company is incredibly focused on its AI efforts and storage needs as compute increases.
The application carries serial number 99893717 and lists the applicant as Tesla, Inc., located at 1 Tesla Road, Austin, Texas 78725.
The filing remains in ‘live pending’ status, and it is a new application waiting for assignment to an examining attorney. It has not yet been published or registered.
Tesla just trademarked MEGAPOD
Summary:
“Modular data center hardware systems for artificial intelligence computing, comprised of computer servers, computer hardware for artificial intelligence processing, computer networking hardware, electrical power distribution units, and… pic.twitter.com/3l85DsKadl— Robin (@xdNiBoR) June 19, 2026
According to the official goods and services description in the application, Tesla describes ‘MEGAPOD’ as:
“Modular data center hardware systems for artificial intelligence computing, comprised of computer servers, computer hardware for artificial intelligence processing, computer networking hardware, electrical power distribution units, and cooling systems, sold as a unit; self-contained modular computing hardware systems for artificial intelligence workloads; integrated computer hardware platforms for artificial intelligence computing, namely, enclosures containing computer hardware, power distribution hardware, and cooling hardware, sold as a unit; downloadable software for monitoring, managing, optimizing, and regulating modular artificial intelligence computing hardware systems.”
This description specifies complete, self-contained modular units that integrate servers and specialized AI processing hardware with networking components, power distribution, and cooling systems. It also includes associated downloadable software for oversight and optimization of these systems. The language emphasizes hardware sold “as a unit” and enclosures that combine the necessary elements for AI computing workloads.
Tesla has an established history of developing and commercializing modular hardware systems. Its Megapack product line, for example, consists of utility-scale battery energy storage systems designed as containerized units for grid applications. The MEGAPOD filing follows a similar pattern of protecting a name for modular, integrated hardware platforms, this time focused on artificial intelligence computing infrastructure.
This could be an early move, especially as Tesla did not have trademark rights to the word ‘Cybercab,’ the name of its self-driving, ride-hailing-focused vehicle.
Trademark applications of this type allow companies to secure priority rights to a name for defined categories of goods and services. The USPTO examines applications for compliance with legal requirements, including distinctiveness and absence of conflicts with prior marks. If the application proceeds successfully through examination, publication, and any opposition period, it could result in a federal trademark registration providing nationwide protection. This is what Tesla’s obvious intention is with ‘MEGAPOD.’
Public reports and analysis suggest MEGAPOD could represent modular, container-style AI computing pods designed for easy deployment. These would bundle servers, AI accelerators, power systems, and cooling into self-contained units suitable for distributed AI workloads. This approach aligns with Tesla’s announced AI compute strategy.
In March 2026, Elon Musk outlined plans for “Digital Optimus” (also referred to as Macrohard), a joint Tesla-xAI project for AI agents capable of handling complex digital tasks. The plans include running these agents on Tesla’s AI4 hardware in parked vehicles as well as dedicated compute units installed at Supercharger stations, which collectively offer substantial unused electrical capacity.
What is Digital Optimus? The new Tesla and xAI project explained
A modular hardware platform like the one described in the ‘MEGAPOD’ filing would support scalable, rapid deployment of such distributed compute resources. It could complement Tesla’s other AI infrastructure efforts, including the Dojo supercomputer used for training models and the development of AI systems for autonomous driving and robotics, by enabling edge or regional AI inference without reliance on traditional centralized data centers.
SpaceX confirms third massive compute deal at Colossus data center
Elon Musk responds to SpaceX’s ESG rating and says its rockets won’t go electric
