Cynical take: Tesla GC says "We completely understand and agree that we won’t deploy any autonomous vehicle feature without a deployment permit" [ https://www.

Cynical take: Tesla GC says "We completely understand and agree that we won’t deploy any autonomous vehicle feature without a deployment permit" [ https://www.plainsite.org/documents/242a2g/california-dmv-tesla-robotaxi--fsd-emails/ https://www.plainsite.org/documents/242a2g/california-dmv-te... ]. Absolutely certain that Tesla won't take liability for city driving unless they absolutely must. Especially when so many Tesla drivers are so open to accepting the liability. If Tesla's competitors (e.g. Waymo etc) launch taxis, then Tesla might change course and do the same. But if Tesla doesn't have to do that, they're going to play a game with California where they get to argue over if their cars are level 2 or actually self-driving or whatever .... all the while Tesla users continue to assume liability and help train Tesla's software.... which is what Tesla really wants to continue as long as possible. These docs don't really shed light on Tesla's FSD plans so much as they illustrate the lengths to which Tesla will go to skirt regulation and liability. All the chatter and rumors about Tesla FSD just drive more attention and more potential users (trainers) into their pool.