It would be a herculean labor to convince me that any "startup" has access to or has put the effort into training a car to drive in such a way that won't lead to tragedy. I include Tesla in that grouping. I do not believe that on-the-job training for any neural network won't kill way too many people unless you offer people the sensors for free and compare real-time human decisions with projected neural network decisions until you have near-total overlap over millions and millions of miles driven. Tesla could be doing that but I don't think they would have let the monster loose as early as they did if they'd taken this approach.
I include Tesla in that grouping. Ditto, though it seems like Google has at least taken that approach. I'm a little surprised that Tesla skipped the line on the regulation. Maybe something to do with the legalese of how the feature is offered?It would be a herculean labor to convince me that any "startup" has access to or has put the effort into training a car to drive in such a way that won't lead to tragedy.
Google has no interest in selling cars. Google will license their dataset and path-following technology (because that's what they're building) to anybody who wants to pay the fees, thereby allowing anyone and everyone to hop onto a crowdsourced traffic system rather than building "autonomous vehicles." Tesla mostly wants to sell batteries and battery-powered cars. They do that by being innovative and a leader in the industry. They're largely appealing to rich eccentrics (for now) but Tesla's exit is probably to another car company. Elon Musk never wanted to be Henry Ford; his spiritual hero is DD Harriman. I think he's said as much although I can't find a source at the moment.