Much excitement surrounding Tesla’s Dojo supercomputing cluster has been swirling in recent months since the system went online, and the automaker already expects it to be one of the world’s most powerful supercomputers by early next year. But one reporter recently noted that Dojo could someday have additional uses beyond processing vast amounts of data for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system and humanoid robot.
Dojo can process millions of terabytes of video data per second from the company’s vehicles, training its neural network at an incredible rate. The company has said that the video foundation models input to Dojo would effectively serve as the brain of its vehicles and its Optimus robot.
In a recent video segment about how Dojo is expected to revolutionize self-driving, however, Yahoo Finance reporter Pras Subramanian also talked about the supercomputing cluster’s potential applications beyond FSD and Optimus.
The short discussion, hosted by Seana Smith, details how the Dojo system will use Tesla’s AI model to train FSD. However, Subramanian also says the supercomputer could someday be used for vessels other than cars, including motorcycles, bicycles and boats. The conversation also touched on how Dojo works, the complexity of training AI to handle roads and Ford and Volkswagen’s decision to end Argo AI operations, among other topics.
You can watch a short clip from the video segment below or see the full conversation here.
As for cars, Musk has previously talked about the potential of using Dojo to perform traffic control simply with the system’s inputs for things like accidents, potholes, road closures or other data that would be useful for a Tesla to access in real-time. Musk said in June that Dojo had been “online and running useful tasks for a few months,” helping out with production workloads and spurring on the current round of excitement surrounding the computing cluster.
In June, Tesla posted about Dojo on X, detailing how its neural networks were already being accessed in its cars and adding that the company is “building the foundation models for autonomous robots.” Below is an excerpt from the thread:
“Our multi-modal neural networks are already in customer vehicles—these networks take in arbitrary modalities such as camera videos, maps, navigation, IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit), GPS etc.
Tasks such as Occupancy prediction are already quite general in what they represent—in some ways, they are ontology-free & simply predict the probability that some 3D position is occupied.
Such occupancy can be used for collision avoidance by any robot.
All of this is enabled by fleet scale auto-labelling. By using video data from multiple trips in the same location, we can reconstruct the entire scene
In addition, we’re building off state-of-the-art generative modeling techniques—enabling us to predict possible outcomes given past observations, in a jointly consistent manner across multiple camera views”
These imagined futures can be action-conditioned to produce different outcomes.
For example, the videos below are generated entirely by the neural network by simply using different prompts pic.twitter.com/ZuJEYcLuZK
— Tesla AI (@Tesla_AI) June 21, 2023
In 2021, Musk said that Dojo could likely someday reduce traffic fatalities by 90 percent and eventually it may be able to reduce them by more than 99 percent.
Last month, a report showed that Tesla had doubled its order of D1 Dojo chips for next year from Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), now totaling 10,000 units. According to the report, the company also plans to increase its order in 2025. Morgan Stanley also said last month that Dojo could add $500 billion to Tesla’s enterprise value.
Tesla Dojo trade secrets lawsuit officially settles out of court
What are your thoughts? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send your tips to us at tips@teslarati.com.
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
