They do not specify the use-case, but if you are charitable, its probably the fallback mode if the self-driving stack cannot handle the situation. Waymo has the same thing as well, so not exactly unexpected.
All major AV deployments have human backup. Waymo published how their's works in broad terms: If a situation requires intervention, the human backup is presented with a choice among possible actions.
What remote monitors imply depends: In China, you might be focusing on collecting data from rides that may need a lot of remote monitoring. Or, faking it until you make it. If you are Google and you like headcount minimalism, it shows you have confidence you can spend $5B on expanding AV service without blowing out you headcount. Tesla also likes to keep headcount low. So they think they can catch up to Waymo very quickly.
They do not specify the use-case, but if you are charitable, its probably the fallback mode if the self-driving stack cannot handle the situation. Waymo has the same thing as well, so not exactly unexpected.
All major AV deployments have human backup. Waymo published how their's works in broad terms: If a situation requires intervention, the human backup is presented with a choice among possible actions.
What remote monitors imply depends: In China, you might be focusing on collecting data from rides that may need a lot of remote monitoring. Or, faking it until you make it. If you are Google and you like headcount minimalism, it shows you have confidence you can spend $5B on expanding AV service without blowing out you headcount. Tesla also likes to keep headcount low. So they think they can catch up to Waymo very quickly.
In case of an accident, who will be held liable? Tesla Inc. or the poor sod driving remotely?
The AV owner. Which complicates the "rent your car to an AV fleet" thing.
Meanwhile in the Tesla factory, workers are controlling its self-assembling cars.
So... why? What problem are they trying to solve? Taxi as WFH?
Fake it till you make it