I noticed too much use of the word "safety", like the LLM was told to emphasise it, so I did a little test: randomly scroll and move the mouse without looking, is there "safety" in there? I did it for 4 times and every time I found it. Ctrl+F -> 136 results.
I personally found this NVIDIA move very interesting. Automakers generally do not want to become frontier AI infrastructure companies and they love technology standardization.
The real technical challenge is rappresented by edge cases: a software that is excellent 99.9% of the time can still be unacceptable if the remaining 0.1% contains rare but catastrophic scenarios. And that's why we still don't see many self-driving vehicles on the roads today.
However, NVIDIA has a credible shot because it controls much of the loop - hardware, training infrastructure and simulation environment. If it works they will impose a huge vendor lock-in, difficult to replicate for other competitors.
I'm very exciting for Nvidia to meaningfully enter this space. I know they've been working on autonomous vehicles for a while now, but it seems like they are approaching a real product. Hopefully, they produce something that can be used on consumer vehicles. We really need good competition in this space. The US market is limited to Tesla FSD and no other manufacturer is even close. I'm not confident individual manufacturers could meaningfully develop their own solutions. A strong third-party option is a great direction for the industry.
18,600 engineering years sounds impressive to someone because it is the bulk of a career for 1,000 engineers. But it is less than two years for 10,000 engineers. The depth of understanding really hinges on which version is closer to reality.
Meta Horizons World probably puts up similar numbers if you sum up the hardware/software tech stack to get this number.
Is anyone else amused that the car shown on the landing page looks a lot like a Tesla Model Y, which famously does _not_ use any Nvidia chips (Tesla onboard computers have been AMD based for some time now)?
Probably the only way to catch up to Waymo's technical lead is for every other player to collaborate. The world dearly needs another self-driving car option.
You can still buy and use Nvidia GPUs to play games. That was the case during the crypto boom, the AI boom, and now the RAM shortage too.
It's also hard to blame Nvidia for the pivot, from where I'm standing. Their proprietary middleware like PhysX, DLSS and RTX has been memed to death by PC gamers, while high-margin edge and datacenter customers are chomping at the bit for CUDA compute. Nvidia's raster stack is more-or-less complete, the things that PC gamers are asking from them are not realistic or fairly priced at this moment in time.
I don't think it's LOC for productivity, it's LOC which have passed safety scrutiny. We're talking about the kind of code which would pass muster on something like NASA's safety assessments, probably. Takeaway: it's a huge codebase which has been audited for safety.
> Are we seriously using LoC as a measure of productivity again?
Yes, sadly. Because its how everyone justifies LLMs. "Look at how much code it writes!" is the only measure they can come up with to sell its usefulness, completely forgetting that it'll be more useful if we started talking about how much code they remove.
If it means what I think it means, you take every engineer working on it (and maybe the years of research involved) and add it all up. Say you have a room with about 10 engineers with 10 years of experience per developer, you can claim there's 100 years of developer experience between all of them (maybe the overlaps not unique enough and its more like 30 to 50 years? but in this case I think they're rounding up, and I assume it means thousands of engineers involved in the project) that's how I took it.
My first interview in tech I was asked what the heck I was even doing with the D programming language, followed by the remark that in the next room (where all the devs were) there was at least 100 years of experience between everybody there, and not a single one knew what D was, my manager clearly did, which cracked me up.
However, it's one of those metrics that tends to be kind of meaningless. Vehicle safety team uses GPUs, so lets bill all GPU driver teams to the metric... that sort of thing
You missed the "21+ billion safety transistors safety assessed" gem.
I don't even know what that was supposed to mean. Hopefully all the safety transistors in the safety graphics card of my safety-PC were safety-assessed, too /s
Someone please give Nemotron a thesaurus. This reminds me of the early days of SEO, where you try to hit 1% keyword density.
The new game is finding a single sentence with the most instances of "safe" or "safety". My current high score is 4..
I noticed too much use of the word "safety", like the LLM was told to emphasise it, so I did a little test: randomly scroll and move the mouse without looking, is there "safety" in there? I did it for 4 times and every time I found it. Ctrl+F -> 136 results.
Safetyxploitation seems to be the key selling keyword for "old" business. Management won't approve any proposal without less than 100 safety mentions.
> Safety transistors safety assessed
I was certain this was a joke...
I was expecting Beyoncé lyrics
Trillion dollar companies can't afford a team to proofread publications.
Until nvidia takes legal/financial responsibility for any accident caused by their self driving system it is not really safe.
142 results now, they are multiplying!
And 170 for just "safe." It really makes it awkward to read.
safetymaxxing
I wonder if safety as in "taking legal responsibility" or some other kind of safety.
The primary focus of this product is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_26262 AKA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_safety for road vehicles. That means review from independent assessors who will demand finely detailed analysis and documentation of the entire system and the entire development process.
While this is fascinating, it's not a (brand-)new development.
Here's Archive.org's copy of the page from 2025 in September, their earliest copy:
https://web.archive.org/web/20250920031549/https://www.nvidi...
"Safety transistors safety assessed" exists in this version too
I personally found this NVIDIA move very interesting. Automakers generally do not want to become frontier AI infrastructure companies and they love technology standardization.
The real technical challenge is rappresented by edge cases: a software that is excellent 99.9% of the time can still be unacceptable if the remaining 0.1% contains rare but catastrophic scenarios. And that's why we still don't see many self-driving vehicles on the roads today.
However, NVIDIA has a credible shot because it controls much of the loop - hardware, training infrastructure and simulation environment. If it works they will impose a huge vendor lock-in, difficult to replicate for other competitors.
I'm very exciting for Nvidia to meaningfully enter this space. I know they've been working on autonomous vehicles for a while now, but it seems like they are approaching a real product. Hopefully, they produce something that can be used on consumer vehicles. We really need good competition in this space. The US market is limited to Tesla FSD and no other manufacturer is even close. I'm not confident individual manufacturers could meaningfully develop their own solutions. A strong third-party option is a great direction for the industry.
Halos == HAL OS ? That didn't work out so well in 2001
No, it's actually Halos OS, which sounds like someone missed the pun during the meeting in which they named it.
18,600 engineering years sounds impressive to someone because it is the bulk of a career for 1,000 engineers. But it is less than two years for 10,000 engineers. The depth of understanding really hinges on which version is closer to reality.
Meta Horizons World probably puts up similar numbers if you sum up the hardware/software tech stack to get this number.
Is anyone else amused that the car shown on the landing page looks a lot like a Tesla Model Y, which famously does _not_ use any Nvidia chips (Tesla onboard computers have been AMD based for some time now)?
No, that's a Mercedez EQE. MB is the launch partner for nVidia's alpamayo-based autonomous efforts.
Probably the only way to catch up to Waymo's technical lead is for every other player to collaborate. The world dearly needs another self-driving car option.
I wonder if this product might be dangerous. Some subtle cues might assay my fears...
Can this safety system safely solve the safety problem of driving with safety on a safe thin layer of fresh safe snow ?
This is a weird way for Nvidia to announce they're going out of business.
They already seem to have fired all humans in the marketing team.
They have their own LLM, might as well use it and then screw their biggest customers that are in the business of LLM-aaS
Needs a human technical writer.
I don't think a single human read this thing before they published it.
I miss when Nvidia made GPUs for games and my OpenCL renderers. What is this trash...
Controversially, Nvidia employs more than one person and so is in fact capable of producing more than one thing at a time.
Thanks for your insight, though I was referring to the sidelining of their GPU consumer business and transformation into what it is now.
You can still buy and use Nvidia GPUs to play games. That was the case during the crypto boom, the AI boom, and now the RAM shortage too.
It's also hard to blame Nvidia for the pivot, from where I'm standing. Their proprietary middleware like PhysX, DLSS and RTX has been memed to death by PC gamers, while high-margin edge and datacenter customers are chomping at the bit for CUDA compute. Nvidia's raster stack is more-or-less complete, the things that PC gamers are asking from them are not realistic or fairly priced at this moment in time.
Great! Safety!
The page had so many LLM-isms that I just can't make sense of.
> 18,600+ Engineering years invested in vehicle safety to date
What does this even mean?
> 7,000,000 Lines of safety-assessed code
Are we seriously using LoC as a measure of productivity again?
Not to mention the em-dashes
I don't think it's LOC for productivity, it's LOC which have passed safety scrutiny. We're talking about the kind of code which would pass muster on something like NASA's safety assessments, probably. Takeaway: it's a huge codebase which has been audited for safety.
> Are we seriously using LoC as a measure of productivity again?
Yes, sadly. Because its how everyone justifies LLMs. "Look at how much code it writes!" is the only measure they can come up with to sell its usefulness, completely forgetting that it'll be more useful if we started talking about how much code they remove.
> What does this even mean?
If it means what I think it means, you take every engineer working on it (and maybe the years of research involved) and add it all up. Say you have a room with about 10 engineers with 10 years of experience per developer, you can claim there's 100 years of developer experience between all of them (maybe the overlaps not unique enough and its more like 30 to 50 years? but in this case I think they're rounding up, and I assume it means thousands of engineers involved in the project) that's how I took it.
My first interview in tech I was asked what the heck I was even doing with the D programming language, followed by the remark that in the next room (where all the devs were) there was at least 100 years of experience between everybody there, and not a single one knew what D was, my manager clearly did, which cracked me up.
> What does this even mean?
It means over 18,600 engineering hours have been spent working on vehicle safety. This is a pretty common metric.
However, it's one of those metrics that tends to be kind of meaningless. Vehicle safety team uses GPUs, so lets bill all GPU driver teams to the metric... that sort of thing
But they say years, not hours. Either it's a typo or nvidia has a ton of engineer and they all work 24/7.
You missed the "21+ billion safety transistors safety assessed" gem.
I don't even know what that was supposed to mean. Hopefully all the safety transistors in the safety graphics card of my safety-PC were safety-assessed, too /s
How else are you supposed to counter all the danger transistors?
Hot take here, but personally I feel they should safety assess the danger transistors, reducing the need for so many safety transistors.