A recently published Tesla patent application titled “System and Method for Handling Errors in a Vehicle Neural Network Processor” describes a way to safely handle errors encountered in self-driving software. Rather than risking delays in driving responses that result from input data errors, a signal is sent to ignore the bad information and continue processing as usual. Tesla’s application was published May 23, 2019 as International Publication No. WO/2019/099941.
During self-driving operations in Tesla’s program, streams of real-time input data are received and used to both train its neural network and initiate a vehicle response to what’s being processed. If something in the data is erroneous or causes a delay in processing, the real-world impact can be disastrous if not handled properly. For example, in a fast-moving vehicle, sensor data can become stale very quickly and cause the self-driving software to respond to an environment that no longer exists. This can result in accidents, property damage, injury, and/or death. The solution presented in Tesla’s patent application attempts to avoid such processing delays altogether and thus improves the safety of the self-driving software overall.
Tesla’s patent application describes the issue as follows:
“Some types of errors may cause neural network processor to hang or time out. That is, one or more portions of neural network processor may freeze or otherwise remain inactive for more than a predetermined amount of time. When a timeout error is encountered, [the] neural network processor may cease to provide output data and/or respond to input data. Other types of errors, such as program errors and/or data errors, may cause the output data generated by [the] neural network processor to be corrupted. When such errors are encountered, [the] neural network processor may continue to provide output data, but the result may be incorrect, meaningless, and/or otherwise unusable.”
-
- Tesla’s self-driving patent application focuses on handling errors found in its neural network. | Image: Tesla/WIPO
-
- Tesla’s self-driving patent application focuses on handling errors found in its neural network. | Image: Tesla/WIPO
On its face, the concept behind invention may seem somewhat simple, but likely due to the complexity of neural networks and the field of autonomous driving still being fairly new, Tesla’s solution is unique and innovative. At the international review stage in the patent application process, the Examiner found that Tesla’s patent was novel (new) compared to similar neural network inventions already in the field. Specifically, the following was commented in a Written Opinion:
“Although neural network processors are well known in the art, including in the operation of a vehicle, the addition of having the controller signal that a pending data result is tainted, or incorrect, without terminating the execution of the network, improves upon prior art processors by ensuring the computations of the processor in the vehicle continue while ignoring data determined to be in error, and would require a complexity beyond the ordinary skill, and therefore…meets the…criteria for patentability.”
Concerns about Tesla’s Autopilot software were recently hit by a report published by Consumer Reports wherein the consumer advocacy group concluded that Navigate on Autopilot with autonomic lane changes was more of a liability than an asset. The report stated that, since the feature requires drivers to be one step ahead of the system while it is engaged, it still needs improvement, although the same group found Tesla’s autonomous driving software to be more capable than the competition. However, the report was only focused on how Navigate on Autopilot operates when changing lanes confirmation and warnings are disabled, contrary to scathing headlines which lumped all of Autopilot’s features together with the review.
This most recent patent application shows that Tesla is continuously improving its self-driving features, if that wasn’t already obvious from the company’s frequent over-the-air software releases.
At Tesla’s Autonomy Day for investors last month, CEO Elon Musk declared that the company’s Full Self-Driving computer was objectively the “best in the world”. As more information becomes available, such as presentations on Tesla’s technology and in patent applications, Musk’s confidence expressed in his statement becomes more clear. Full Self-Driving is expected to be feature-complete this year and will become publicly available as regulatory hurdles are overcome.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
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
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
