It is tough being Tesla. In a world where cars are becoming electric, just as the company initially intended when its mission began 18 years ago, Tesla is the top dog at the moment. Every car company in the world is nipping at its heels in an attempt to catch up to Elon Musk’s car company. However, recent developments have inspired me to look at a different kind of competition that Tesla is facing, something that feels somewhat unjust in the grand scheme of things. Unfortunately, it’s not from another car company, it’s from federal investigators and Tesla skeptics who continue to magnify the company’s accidents, all because there is the possibility that a car involved in an accident may have been operating on Autopilot.
Earlier this week, a Model Y was involved in a crash in Michigan. What turned out to be a case of reckless driving was initially blamed on the possibility of Autopilot by mainstream media sources. Unfortunately for them, their credibility regarding Tesla vehicles continues to be chipped away as they sacrifice long-term trustworthiness in the field of electric vehicles for short-term viewership. A Tesla was in fact in an accident in Detroit, and yes, the NHTSA was investigating it. There’s no reason to go any more broad than that.
Unfortunately, Tesla’s rollout of Autopilot and Full Self-Driving has put the company at risk for these types of stories. Anytime a Tesla crashes, the first thing that is planted in people’s minds is the possibility that the car may have been using the semi-autonomous driving functionalities. Why? Human beings are still responsible for operating the car even when the vehicle is utilizing the state-of-the-art technology. It is in no way the car’s fault when the driver is still responsible for the ultimate operation of the vehicle. It’s like blaming a fork for obesity, in my eyes.
While it is unfortunate that there have been deaths due to Autopilot, there are instances where gross negligence from the driver is truly the cause of an accident. For example, in a case where speed and reckless driving is truly the factor, there needs to be an immediate clarification by investigating officers. Perhaps Tesla could provide some clarification to authorities in some kind of system where officers could give the VIN of a vehicle involved, and Tesla could determine immediately whether the car was operating using its driver assistance features. Obviously, there may be a better way. But in the short-term, especially in the early days of the FSD Beta, the credibility of the vehicle’s systems is extremely important for future rollouts.
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.
Statistically, Tesla vehicles are much safer than human drivers, to begin with. Recent Q4 2020 Safety Report statistics from Tesla show that one accident occurred with Autopilot every 3.45 million miles. The national average is 484,000 miles. Isn’t that enough to prove Autopilot is a better option than human driving? By the way, it only gets more accurate and precise with every mile driven thanks to its Neural Networks that attain new data.
The exposure Tesla receives after one of these tragic accidents is likely what is the most frustrating. Immediately, people jump to conclusions and assume the car was responsible for the issues. It’s interesting though because I can’t ever recall a single instance of media jumping all over an issue with SuperCruise or any of the other numerous driver assistance systems that are out on the market today. I am sure there has been coverage, I just can’t recall any instance where it has been a national headline like Tesla seems to be included in on a regular basis.
In all honesty, it is just extremely frustrating to know that there is so much focus on Tesla’s shortcomings instead of its broad successes. I am a TSLA investor, but I am also extremely critical of the company at times, and I believe it is because of my holdings. There are times I would do things differently. I was vocal about my distaste for not telling any Model Y LR RWD reservation holders that their cars weren’t going to be made. I am upset that there is relatively no communication with Model S Plaid reservation holders regarding their steering wheels. I am not a fan that we’ve been told Semi/Roadster production is imminent on numerous occasions but we are still sitting here with neither of those vehicles. I get the bottlenecks, but I think those things have just frustrated me personally.
I’m glad Tesla spends $0 on advertising. The news outlets & media don’t deserve Teslas money. It’s better used growing the company & for things like building next-gen factories. Ford and GM alone will spend over $5B this year on US advertising. The bias is clear and money talks.
— Sawyer Merritt ?? (@SawyerMerritt) March 17, 2021
However, I am also going to admit when things are just plain unfair, and Tesla is a victim of that on so many occasions. I don’t know if that has to do with oil money lining the pockets of MSM, or it is just an attempt to derail a company that has really disrupted the automotive industry. I won’t speculate. There is, of course, a reason for the investigations that could be beneficial. It could just be an attempt to learn from the mistakes of Tesla and pass them along for future instances. Unfortunately, there will be more accidents with self-driving software, and it will go far beyond Tesla. However, Tesla is the only company with a robust self-driving program, so the microscope almost needs to be on them at times, but that’s where this whole situation really gets sticky.
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!
News
Swedish unions consider police report over Tesla Megapack Supercharger
The Tesla Megapack Supercharger opened shortly before Christmas in Arlandastad, outside Stockholm.
Swedish labor unions are considering whether to file a police report related to a newly opened Tesla Megapack Supercharger near Stockholm, citing questions about how electricity is supplied to the site. The matter has also been referred to Sweden’s energy regulator.
Tesla Megapack Supercharger
The Tesla Megapack Supercharger opened shortly before Christmas in Arlandastad, outside Stockholm. Unlike traditional charging stations, the site is powered by an on-site Megapack battery rather than a direct grid connection. Typical grid connections for Tesla charging sites in Sweden have seen challenges for nearly two years due to union blockades.
Swedish labor union IF Metall has submitted a report to the Energy Market Inspectorate, asking the authority to assess whether electricity supplied to the battery system meets regulatory requirements, as noted in a report from Dagens Arbete (DA). The Tesla Megapack on the site is charged using electricity supplied by a local company, though the specific provider has not been publicly identified.
Peter Lydell, an ombudsman at IF Metall, issued a comment about the Tesla Megapack Supercharger. “The legislation states that only companies that engage in electricity trading may supply electricity to other parties. You may not supply electricity without a permit, then you are engaging in illegal electricity trading. That is why we have reported this… This is about a company that helps Tesla circumvent the conflict measures that exist. It is clear that it is troublesome and it can also have consequences,” Lydell said.
Police report under consideration
The Swedish Electricians’ Association has also examined the Tesla Megapack Supercharger and documented its power setup. As per materials submitted to the Energy Market Inspectorate, electrical cables were reportedly routed from a property located approximately 500 meters from the charging site.
Tomas Jansson, ombudsman and deputy head of negotiations at the Swedish Electricians’ Association, stated that the union was assessing whether to file a police report related to the Tesla Megapack Supercharger. He also confirmed that the electricians’ union was coordinating with IF Metall about the matter. “We have a close collaboration with IF Metall, and we are currently investigating this. We support IF Metall in their fight for fair conditions at Tesla,” Jansson said.
News
Tesla HW4.5 spotted in new Model Y, triggers speculation
Owners taking delivery of recent Model Y builds have identified components labeled “AP45.”
Tesla’s Hardware 4.5 computer appears to have surfaced in newly delivered Model Y vehicles, prompting fresh speculation about an interim upgrade ahead of the company’s upcoming AI5 chip.
Owners taking delivery of recent Model Y builds have identified components labeled “AP45,” suggesting Tesla may have quietly started rolling out revised autonomy hardware.
Hardware 4.5 appears in new Model Y units
The potential Hardware 4.5 sighting was first reported by Model Y owner @Eric5un, who shared details of a Fremont-built 2026 Model Y AWD Premium delivered this January. As per the Model Y owner, the vehicle includes a new front camera housing and a 16-inch center display, along with an Autopilot computer labeled “AP45” and part number 2261336-02-A.
The Tesla owner later explained that he confirmed the part number by briefly pulling down the upper carpet liner below the Model Y’s glovebox. Other owners soon reported similar findings. One Model Y Performance owner noted that their December build also appeared to include Hardware 4.5, while another owner of an Austin-built Model Y Performance reported spotting the same “AP45” hardware.
These sightings suggest that Tesla may already be installing revised FSD computers in its new Model Y batches, despite the company not yet making any formal announcements about Hardware 4.5.
What Hardware 4.5 could represent
Clues about Hardware 4.5 have surfaced previously in Tesla’s Electronic Parts Catalog. As reported by NotATeslaApp, the catalog has listed a component described as “CAR COMPUTER – LEFT HAND DRIVE – PROVISIONED – HARDWARE 4.5.” The component, which features the part number 2261336-S2-A, is priced at $2,300.00.
Longtime Tesla hacker @greentheonly has noted that Tesla software has contained references to a possible three-SoC architecture for some time. Previous generations of Tesla’s FSD computer, including Hardware 3 and Hardware 4, use a dual-SoC design for redundancy. A three-SoC layout could allow for higher inference throughput and improved fault tolerance.
Such an architecture could also serve as a bridge to AI5, Tesla’s next-generation autonomy chip expected to enter production later in 2026. As Tesla’s neural networks grow larger and more computationally demanding, Hardware 4.5 may provide additional headroom for vehicles built before AI5 becomes widely available.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk’s Grokipedia is getting cited by OpenAI’s ChatGPT
Some responses generated by OpenAI’s ChatGPT have recently referenced information from Grokipedia.
Some responses generated by OpenAI’s ChatGPT have recently referenced information from Grokipedia, an AI-generated encyclopedia developed by rival xAI, which was founded by Elon Musk. The citations appeared across a limited set of queries.
Reports about the matter were initially reported by The Guardian.
Grokipedia references in ChatGPT
Grokipedia launched in October as part of xAI’s effort to build an alternative to Wikipedia, which has become less centrist over the years. Unlike Wikipedia, which is moderated and edited by humans, Grokipedia is purely AI-powered, allowing it to approach topics with as little bias as possible, at least in theory. This model has also allowed Grokipedia to grow its article base quickly, with recent reports indicating that it has created over 6 million articles, more than 80% of English Wikipedia.
The Guardian reported that ChatGPT cited Grokipedia nine times across responses to more than a dozen user questions during its tests. As per the publication, the Grokipedia citations did not appear when ChatGPT was asked about high-profile or widely documented topics. Instead, Grokipedia was referenced in responses to more obscure historical or biographical claims. The pattern suggested selective use rather than broad reliance on the source, at least for now.
Broader Grokipedia use
The Guardian also noted that Grokipedia citations were not exclusive to ChatGPT. Anthropic’s AI assistant Claude reportedly showed similar references to Grokipedia in some responses, highlighting a broader issue around how large language models identify and weigh publicly available information.
In a statement to The Guardian, an OpenAI spokesperson stated that ChatGPT “aims to draw from a broad range of publicly available sources and viewpoints.” “We apply safety filters to reduce the risk of surfacing links associated with high-severity harms, and ChatGPT clearly shows which sources informed a response through citations,” the spokesperson stated.
Anthropic, for its part, did not respond to a request for comment on the matter. As for xAI, the artificial intelligence startup simply responded with a short comment that stated, “Legacy media lies.”
Swedish unions consider police report over Tesla Megapack Supercharger
Tesla HW4.5 spotted in new Model Y, triggers speculation
