Thanks for sharing. Elon has assembled some amazing talents in that team and, in aggregate the AI/ML, software and hardware development capability is incredible. Blew my mind.

He's very explicit that they are developing this capability in house and will consider licencing it to other vehicle manufacturers. But does that mark the end of Data Labelling As A Service more generally? And if so when? I agree that in the long term, it is bad new news for APX. But it will be hard for other player to emulate these capabilities.

If the APX State of AI report is to be believed, then in the short-to-medium term the number of clients are growing and the size of budgets is expanding.

I am very interested to see the next APX results and the narrative around them.  

Overall, I agree with your proposition. It is bad for APX, but over what timescale, I am less than clear.

I am sceptical that the equation is that simple. With massive growth in AI not all data sets will be amenable to auto labelling and even to train the autolabeling algorithm you will require human annotated data. My understanding remains that its that last few percentage points of accuracy that really challenges any computer only trained dataset. 

To me the situation is sort of similar to when a competitor pops up in a new market at first its concerning before you realise it is because there is a real profitable opportunity there. There is a real need for these labled data sets.

Of course I could be wrong but willing to see what the company says and the numbers it reports rather than accept that all computers will be teaching themselves in five years. 

Just look at the financials. They do not match up with the exponential growth in AI training data demand.  

I said it before and will say it again. THESIS IS BROKEN. IMO to hold on is hoping future innovation will slow...........and it wont. 

Cathie Wood says AI training data costs are dropping 68% pa

Costs are dropping because machines are training machines.....