What if it is a demo only? In that it “launches” there is a dog and pony show and then it’s cancelled the next day?

@JimAusman This market was specifically made to resolve yes in the event of a dog and pony show.

As pointed out by @MachiNi several times, the most relevant part of the desription is:
"The market will resolve NO if [...] the service requires human supervision [...] in the car";

whereas the tweet says there will be "A Tesla Safety Monitor sitting in the front right passenget seat".

Please explain this specific discrepancy between your criteria set in the description, and your intent to resolve to "yes" if the service launches as described. I am not asking anything about potential "safety drivers". Only specifically "no human supervision in the car" vs. "safety monitor sitting in the passenger seat". Are you saying that a safety monitor does not qualify as human supervision?

The AI updates are giving off huge make-it-up-as-you-go vibes. The goalposts keep shhhhhhhifting.

@MachiNi It's okay if you don't like the criteria Brian picked, but I think he's been pretty consistent.

@TimothyJohnson5c16 false. See below. The original criteria ruled out human supervision inside the car which is exactly what the safety monitor is for. I mean just look at the history of ad hoc edits. It’s a mess.

@MachiNi I said If they launch a paid service without the supervised driver then that counts as unsupervised.

@brianwang

Let me quote your own description again:

The market will resolve NO if:

• The launch is delayed beyond June 2025

• The service requires human supervision/safety drivers in the car

• The service is canceled or not launched at all

A human being monitoring inside the car with access to controls is nothing other than supervision. Again, where they sit and whether they’re ’behind the wheel’ is irrelevant and was never part of your criteria.

@MachiNi @brianwang The original criteria seemed pretty clear that remote monitoring would be allowed, but that a human monitoring in the vehicle would resolve NO.

@brianwang Just chiming in to say I'm down with whatever you think is best! Thanks for dealing with this unfortunately dramatic market. I do think there is reasonable ambiguity about the safety monitor and no side has a clearly winning argument.

@MachiNi I'd appreciate if you stopped the pile on @brianwang It is clear you disagree with the resolution criteria and that's understandable, but I think this style of post doesn't help clarify/fix the situation and just spams the comments and drowns out possibility of getting answers on specific questions about the resolution. I'd rather learn more about the specific line the creator has in mind between a "monitor" and a "driver".

@AIBear 🫡

Is there any proof someone has paid for the service? Tolls reimbursement should not count as payment.

@ikoukas Sunday is when it starts

The Early Access phase is invitation-only.

Parameters of Use:

• You must read through and agree to the attached Terms of Service, Rider Rules, Robotaxi Rider Privacy Notice, and Service Animal Policy. 

• You must have a credit/debit card on file. 

You may request a ride in the app to/from anywhere in the geofenced area, excluding any airports, between 6:00AM to 12:00AM (midnight), every day of the week. These operational hours are subject to change.A map of the geofenced area is available in the app. 

• Note that service may be limited or unavailable in the event of inclement weather. 

• Only the invitee may download and use the Robotaxi App to hail a Robotaxi ride. 

• Please be courteous and treat the service with respect. Your participation in this Early Access program may be terminated for various reasons, including violating these parameters or engaging in unsafe and/or disrespectful behavior. 

• Provide a star rating and feedback from your experience in the app.

• Photos and video of the experience are ok.

@brianwang charging for the rides

https://x.com/sawyermerritt/status/1935958577128022088?s=46&t=f-bNB2yoSVy4zrXsbxx_RA

@brianwang what if it “launches” and then immediately unlaunches (e.g., it’s just a demo).

Invites sent to non-employees. Noone on the driver seat but a "safety monitor" on the front right passenger seat. https://x.com/ItsKimJava/status/1935941268741165081

@MarkosGiannopoulos thanks for the heads up Markos. Looks like Sunday is the day.

@brianwang how do you feel about no-driver-but-safety-monitoring-on-passenger-seat in terms of resolving this market? :)

@MarkosGiannopoulos safety monitor is not safety driver

@brianwang paying customers. Non employees. No safety driver. Before July 1 2025 in Austin. Resolves positive. Invite only is still ok.

@brianwang Just to check: for the resolution of the question is it important where the person is sitting in the car or whether they are controlling the car? Specifically, if the "safety monitor" can take direct control over the car (say an extra break pedal + gamepad to control steering), despite sitting in a different seat, would you still resolve YES?

@AIBear Yes, he mentioned it various time. I don't agree with the criteria, but it's his market

@SimoneRomeo I don’t think it’s that clear. The description says:

The market will resolve NO if:

• The launch is delayed beyond June 2025

• The service requires human supervision/safety drivers in the car

The service requires humain supervision in the car. What else is a safety monitor in the car if not human supervision in the car? What a joke. Talk about moving the goalposts.

@brianwang safety monitor is human supervision in the car, something your original criteria ruled out.

@MachiNi we discussed this. We debated it a lot. I'm sorry for you but you should have read the conversations and the comments in the description, see (Update 2025-05-15)

@SimoneRomeo I did, I’ve spent a lot of time reading the description and comments. I’m sorry, but a safety monitor sitting in the car is exactly what a safety driver sounds like. The fact that they’re sitting in a passenger seat is irrelevant. Much of the discussion was about remote supervision and this is not remote. I’m not even losing much mana because I bought and sold at the right times, but I just think this goalpost shifting is dishonest.

@MachiNi to be fair, Waymo did have paid rides with safety drivers (in the driver's seat) in the car. Why are we to suddenly put stricter rules on Tesla?

@MachiNi yeah, I think it's misleading and even deceitful for the word choice. But it was clarified and the info was there for everyone to read.

@MarkosGiannopoulos I guess problem is not about comparisons, but the word choice that was used, no one would have got a problem if the market allowed to bet about robotaxis launch without mentioning anything about being "unsupervised"

@MarkosGiannopoulos I’m not putting stricter rules on Tesla, I’m going by the market description!

@SimoneRomeo I'm with @MachiNi - the only clarifications were about remote supervision, there was no clarification (yet) on when a company employee in the car counts as driver/supervision. And it would be reasonable to me that if there was an employee in the car, but the employee had no way to directly control the car (e.g. just a steward serving drinks and taking notes on passenger's enjoyment), it would not count as supervision/driver. But I'd expect Tesla to give those people some level of control, so I'd like @brianwang to clarify in advance where they would draw this specific line.

@AIBear I mean isn’t it just a safety driver under another name? They’ll have access to all the same controls.

@SimoneRomeo what is the difference between a safety monitor and a safety driver? A tesla employee is sitting in the car surpervising the car with control of the vehicle either way.

@MachiNi not certain. They obviously do not have a steering wheel.

@MarkosGiannopoulos steering wheel not in the market description

@AIBear The "safety monitor" probably just has a "kill switch" to hit the brakes. Remains to be seen. People will be allowed to take photos :D

@AIBear the cabin camera is supposed to be off as default. If they built a second set of brakes and steering wheel then the safety monitor would be safety driving. There has to be proof that is happening. I think there could be verbal safe words or commands. But those are not driving

@brianwang That's unfortunately pretty vague. Let's go through the somewhat likely cases:

A) the "safety monitor" has just a killswitch and/or an extra break pedal that overrides the computer. Would the market resolve YES?

Note that A) is exactly what an instructor/supervisor in an European driving schools has, so my argument is that if this is deemed enough to supervise completely novice human drivers it should count as supervision over a computer, but obviously creator has the final word.

B) If it turns out those "safety monitors" frequently engaged the killswitch/brake and then move to drivers seat and resolve the situation by manually driving would the market resolve YES?

C) If it turns out those "safety monitors" can also directly control steering via something else than a steering wheel (say by a gamepad), would the market resolve YES?

@brianwang it is a real stretch to say that having an employee in the car counts as autonomous and contradicts what you said on May 17

@brianwang lmao I can't believe you guys debated for so many comments and didn't bring up the following.

What if, and stay with me here, the human supervisor in the passenger seat, simply moves over 2 feet into the driver's seat if the need arises?

Why tf would they put a person in the car if they did not in principle have a way to control the car? What a joke, this is obv just a PR move by Musk to say he didn't have drivers, and you're falling for it.

Full disclosure, I have no bets in this market precisely bc so many Manifold markets are poorly resolved

@pietrokc but see, they’re not a driver, they’re a passenger taking over. Except they’re of course like a driver, fully supervising everything, and employed by Tesla. Oh you and your nitpicking.