Welcome back to TechCrunch Mobility, your hub for the future of transportation and now, more than ever, the role AI is playing in it. To get this in your inbox, sign up here for free — just click TechCrunch Mobility!

TechCrunch covered a couple of stories this week that illustrate the countervailing forces at play within the autonomous vehicle industry. The federal government is hitting the accelerator while state and local officials are pumping the brakes on autonomous vehicles. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration made a series of autonomous vehicle technology announcements designed to cut red tape and accelerate the development and deployment of this technology (my article describes many of its actions). The one that got the most attention was the agency’s decision to give Zoox a temporary exemption from eight federal motor vehicle safety standards, which will finally allow the company to charge customers for rides in its custom-built robotaxi.

The importance of this can’t be understated. This was one of the last remaining regulatory hurdles Zoox needed to clear before launching a commercial robotaxi service. And according to the company, paid rides are imminent. The company will start charging for rides in Las Vegas first.

Meanwhile, Waymo and other robotaxi operators are facing increased scrutiny over how their autonomous vehicles interact with emergency responders, a regulatory risk that’s becoming harder for the industry to shrug off. As I have noted before, San Francisco mayor Daniel Lurie asked state regulators to bolster rules for autonomous vehicles nearly two weeks after Waymo robotaxis became immobile in heavy July 4 traffic, ran out of power, and blocked key streets, further compounding the gridlock.

This week, Rep. Kevin Mullin (D-Calif.) proposed a bill that would direct federal regulators to establish minimum national safety standards for autonomous vehicle operators. 

“We have seen disturbing, and frankly, an unacceptable number of incidents where autonomous vehicles inadvertently interfere with emergency responders,” Mullin said during the press conference, which Lurie also spoke at.

So here we are, a push forward, and nope, a pull back. And in the middle is the AV industry.

What do you think? Send me an email with your view at kirsten.korosec@techcrunch.com.

Deals!

Lucid has landed more Saudi money, this time from Prince Al Waleed bin Talal Al Saud, a member of the Saudi royal family. The billionaire prince purchased a little more than 19 million shares, or about 5%, of Lucid Motors, according to a regulatory filing. 

Elon Musk’s tunneling startup The Boring Company is in talks to raise a $4 billion funding round at a valuation of $20 billion.

Terminal, a Toronto-based startup that provides telematics data infrastructure for the commercial fleet industry, raised $20 million in a Series A round led by Battery Ventures. New strategic investors Intact Private Capital and Penske, as well as returning backers Y Combinator and Wayfinder Ventures, also participated.

Notable reads and other tidbits

Alaska Airlines CEO and president Ben Minicucci joined Lyft’s board of directors.

The nascent on-demand drone-delivery industry had a busy week. Walmart and Alphabet’s Wing drone delivery started service across Central Florida, and Flytrex announced a partnership with autonomic logistics platform Nash. But the biggest announcement was about DoorDash, which said it was building a drone delivery business, including its own aircraft, as part of an effort developed by its robotics and autonomy team. This will eventually operate within the company’s delivery app.

Ferrari might have received a lot of hate for its first all-electric vehicle, the Luce, but the criticism didn’t dampen sales. Ferrari hit this year’s sales target for the Luce in just two months.

Florida was awarded $200 million under the federal National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program, but the money never made it to charging infrastructure for electric cars. Instead, the state is using the money to build 32 landing pads with charging stations for electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft, or eVTOLs.  

London is shaping up to be the next robotaxi battleground. Baidu has started testing autonomous vehicles in London as part of its partnership with Lyft and Freenow, the taxi and multi-mobility app that the ride-hailing company now owns. The companies plan to invite the public to hail their robotaxis in 2027. Meanwhile, others are also preparing to launch. In April, Waymo began testing its autonomous vehicles with human safety operators in the city. Uber and its self-driving tech partner, Wayve, also announced plans to launch a robotaxi service in London this year.

Rivian spinoff Also will finally start delivering its first e-bikes to customers next week, after months of delays related to unspecified supply chain issues.

In yet another hint that a Tesla-SpaceX merger is imminent, the EV maker is considering selling off its China business ahead of a SpaceX merger, according to the Wall Street Journal. Meanwhile, Tesla hit a new milestone and built its 10 millionth EV.

Waymo robotaxis started to return to freeways, more than two months after the company stopped driving these high-speed roads over concerns about how its autonomous vehicles behaved near construction zones.

One more thing …

There was a time when this newsletter was chock-full of electric vehicle news, much of it centered on ambitious plans from U.S. automakers GM and Ford. Both companies ramped up spending and formed joint ventures to build battery and EV factories, in an effort to shift their portfolios to ones filled with electric cars, trucks, and SUVs. But as those plans have retreated, so has the talk. 

TechCrunch teamed up with Hudson Labs, a New York-based financial research firm, to analyze the last seven years of GM and Ford quarterly earnings calls and found that both companies are talking about EVs at a lower rate than they did before the pandemic.

The upshot: While GM and Ford still sell EVs and have new models in their product pipelines, their collective focus has shifted, and it shows in the data. Check out the story, which includes two interactive graphs.

The Malaysian government has ordered the shutdown of a startup-centric community called the Network School, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Billing itself as “a frontier community for techno-optimists,” the Network School reportedly grew out of entrepreneur and investor Balaji Srinivasan’s conviction that the United States is in irreversible decline; Srinivasan has said his goal is “to start a new country.”

So the Network School is supposed to represent the first step in a seven-stage plan (outlined in Srinivasan’s book “The Network State”) for building a new society. Based in an abandoned Malaysian hotel, the WSJ described the program as “part tech incubator, part self-improvement retreat.” Attendees, however, complained about moldy rooms, as well as a dearth of women and nightlife. 

After receiving questions from the WSJ, Srinivasan – who apparently renounced his American citizenship in 2023 — published a lengthy post on X declaring himself “a proud Singaporean” and complaining that the WSJ was working on a “hit piece” that would make him look like “an odd duck […] as opposed to an early adopter.”

And although the current Malaysian campus will reportedly need to shut down due to licensing issues, Srinivasan recently announced a new agreement for a campus in Kazakhstan.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently said that it may be time to “pace the rate of AI development” so that society can “harden around some of these new capability levels.”

On the latest episode of TechCrunch’s Equity podcast, Kirsten Korosec, Sean O’Kane, and I discussed how Altman’s comments were probably prompted by a recent hack in which an OpenAI agent breached Hugging Face’s systems. Sean noted that while a hack performed by an AI agent is novel, the hack itself was not  “some new advanced thing.”

“It was more like Nixon’s people breaking into Watergate than some real stealthy cyber-op, because it didn’t need to be, and it wasn’t instructed to be,” Sean said. “Hopefully, this is a sign that these companies will take this forward and be more careful about that stuff.”

Altman’s comments also gave me a chance to wonder about the usefulness of the whole accelerationist versus deceleration debate, because (yes, I’m about to quote myself) the framing “kind of suggests that there’s only one path” and “all we get to decide — inasmuch as we get to decide at all — is, do we speed up or do we slow down?”

Keep reading for a preview of our conversation, edited for length and clarity.

Sean O’Kane: Maybe we’ve finally hit an inflection point here. I think a big driver of this has to be what we talked about last week, with one of OpenAI’s models breaking into Hugging Face’s data and apparently breaching a few other things around the internet, as well. 

[Altman’s] not calling for a pause, like we’ve seen some people in the tech industry try to do in the past. He was very careful with his words and saying, “Pace it.” And we’ll see how this holds. Any caution that we see some of these labs throw out there often gets reversed when the incentives push them forward to resume, full speed ahead. So I remain skeptical, big surprise.

Kirsten Korosec: Now I will say this — [Altman] might have been careful with his words, but OpenAI and Anthropic did [support] a petition that does reflect what he did talk about.

And I do agree with you, I think that a lot of this was very much triggered by Hugging Face. It probably spooked him and certainly a lot of people in the industry. The hard thing here is: How do you thread the needle or how does OpenAI thread the needle of continuing to generate revenue, raise money, or have a successful IPO, and quote unquote “pace development.”

I don’t know if they can do that. I’ll be curious to see if they manage both.

Anthony Ha: One of the things I’ve been wrestling with is also this question of: Is acceleration [vs.] deceleration the right framework to be thinking about this? Because it kind of suggests that there’s only one path and we’re all stuck on this path. All we get to decide — inasmuch as we get to decide at all — is, do we speed up or do we slow down? As opposed to — again, I’m going to really torture this metaphor — but do we build different guardrails? Do we choose different paths? 

I’m just very resistant to this framework. As opposed to saying, “Okay, if we’re not happy about what models are doing right now, what else can we do? Is a slowdown, a pause, a stoppage, the only option?” And I don’t think it is.

One thing that I did want to emphasize again, because it’s been really interesting to see the level of alarm around this — this sense of, “What if we have these autonomous agents and models just running around hacking each other, trying to prevent hacks, it’s just all getting out of our control,” leading to all these broader debates about alignment that Rebecca Bellan did a great piece about.

But it’s worth coming back to one of the points that we also wrote about at TechCrunch, that this specific hack — yes, it was caused by an OpenAI model, but it sounds like they just didn’t secure the testing site properly. In theory, this model should not have been able to get online. Now, of course, if you have a powerful misaligned AI, the risks of that human error go up dramatically. But it does start from just the fact that they didn’t secure things the way they should have.

Sean: I think that’s right. I think your point is well taken in the sense of, we shouldn’t only think about this in some linear fashion and whether things are accelerating or decelerating. There’s a lot that could and should be said about just how responsible these companies are being. Lorenzo, one of our colleagues, also wrote a really good piece walking through how serious security researchers who pay attention to this stuff think that the hack really was. It really does seem like, on both sides of this hack, there were steps that probably should have been taken that would have prevented it. 

And one of the things that I found most interesting in that story was that some of the researchers were pointing out that what this model did was not some new advanced thing. It was really very human in the way that it thought about trying to break into trying — not to anthropomorphize, but the way that it thought about breaking into Hugging Face, and that it was also very loud and messy and wasn’t really trying to hide its tracks. It was more like Nixon’s people breaking into Watergate than some real stealthy cyber-op, because it didn’t need to be, and it wasn’t instructed to be.

That should have been more easily preventable. And hopefully, this is a sign that these companies will take this forward and be more careful about that stuff. 

I will say one other thing on the accel vs decel [debate.] I don’t know if this is the motivation, but you mentioned the IPO, Kirsten. I think it’s smart of Altman to be able to push this advantage that they have now, which is that [OpenAI is] not going to [the] markets next month, or two months from now. He’s even floated the idea of going in 2027 and that they only filed their confidential filing so that they have the option ready when they’re ready.

So if you believe all of that, he has the ability to talk this talk in a way that Anthropic can’t, because Anthropic’s already in conversation with a lot of the bankers and is headed towards a more near-term IPO and is therefore more restricted in what it can say and how it should be saying it and how the market is going to react to that.