I walked into Blackdot’s tattoo studio in Austin’s east side on a sweltering May afternoon. After shaking my sweat-soaked hand, founder and CEO Joel Pennington led me up into an office building and opened the door to a small, three-room space. Critics have unflatteringly compared the studio to a sterile hospital room — a comparison not entirely without merit. In a corner room, the machine I had come here to see loomed: a humming, fridge-sized device reminiscent of an old X-ray unit. Blackdot calls it the world’s first “automatic tattooing device.”
The space was filled with signs of the path traveled so far. Pennington handed me several slabs of floppy, odd-smelling artificial skin the company uses for testing. Before that, they tested tattoos on pigskin — a close stand-in for human flesh, sourced from a local Asian grocery store. He says they initially tried sourcing it from a Mexican market but found that skin was simply too dry.
Pennington tells The Verge his device is definitely not a “robot,” since it doesn’t make high-level, autonomous decisions. One thing it definitely is: polarizing. Some, like the storied New York shop Bang Bang, have embraced the technology and are now using the machine to perform text tattoos in-house. Others worry the device could bring the same automation anxieties felt in other industries to tattooing’s doorstep.
Tattoos are more popular than ever. As of 2023, Pew estimated that nearly a third (32 percent) of US adults have at least one tattoo, rising to 46 percent among millennials. The practice, in various forms, dates back at least 7,000 years and spans many cultures and regions. The mummified remains of “Ötzi the Iceman,” who died in the snow-covered Italian Alps around 5,300 years ago, bear 61 tattoos, including two wrist cuffs.
Over time, incremental technological advances followed — inks improved in color and longevity, and electric tattoo machines emerged in the 19th century, speeding up the process. Still, at the end of the day, tattooing has always come down to one human piercing another’s skin and applying ink. Blackdot’s device would mark a notable technological departure.
Pennington himself wasn’t a “tattoo guy.” A former head of global business development in industrial cybersecurity at Cisco, he officially incorporated Blackdot in 2019 after a series of brainstorming sessions with a business partner. (Earlier ideas included several blockchain-based payment systems, which were ultimately scrapped.) The decision to dive into tattoos actually stemmed partly from Pennington’s interest in coffee culture around the world. Pennington says he noticed the coolest, most memorable people in many of those shops had something in common: many of them were sporting ink.
The result, after several years of prototyping and lots of poking, was Blackdot: a company centered around a large, industrial fridge-sized tattoo machine that Pennington claims can outperform human artists. In addition to the device, Blackdot aims to “centralize” tattoo art by creating a marketplace in which artists receive a royalty each time their design is used by the machine. It’s a bold vision but still incredibly nascent.
Blackdot uses proprietary software to convert an image into a “.tattoo” file format readable by its device. Pennington claims the system can handle nearly any image, whether a standard tattoo design, a complex illustration, or even generative art created by an algorithm. A human operator then places the client’s arm or leg in position, straps it down, and places another device in position. The operator can override or stop the machine in case of emergencies. The device then works section by section. Machine vision guides the process, helping the device track its position in real time. As in a traditional tattoo studio, a stencil must be applied first. Without it, the machine can lose its place during the procedure. The final result is an image composed of tens of thousands of tiny gray dots — basically a high-tech version of pointillism. The device does not currently produce color tattoos.
A key difference between Blackdot’s device and a human artist’s hand, Pennington says, occurs before any ink enters the skin. At the start of a session, the device uses a digital microscope and image-processing algorithms to determine the appropriate tattooing depth and number of punctures. This process, making tiny, inkless punctures, is personalized to each individual’s skin. Pennington says this level of precision helps produce vivid, consistent dots. In theory, the device’s targeted, mathematical approach could also improve a tattoo’s longevity by reducing the risk of ink blowouts. Anecdotally, some of Blackdot’s earliest tattoos still appear sharp and unblemished, though they are only a few years old. More prominent tattoo fading often only shows itself many years after the fact.
There are still a number of tattoos, at least for now, that are better suited to the human hand. Though Pennington is adamant his device can theoretically execute any style of image, the small, precise dots it uses make it less desirable for people seeking American Traditional tattoos or other styles defined by thick, pronounced lines. Human tattoo artists also have more flexibility in terms of where on the body they can work. Blackdot’s machine, for example, does not currently function on the hands, chest, or back. The eventual goal, Pennington says, is to create a device that’s a jack of all trades, but its current iteration is more like a niche artist in a shop that specializes in a particular aesthetic.
One of the first people to get tattooed by the machine outside of Blackdot’s immediate circle was Texas-based content creator Dominique Bird, who goes by the handle aussiedomxo on her popular Instagram and TikTok pages. She told The Verge she reached out to Blackdot in 2023 when the company only had a few hundred social media followers and inquired about getting a free tattoo. Blackdot agreed and brought her and a few friends into the studio several weeks later.
The entire process took around six hours (only around 50 minutes of which was active tattooing) and involved applying a stencil Bird described as looking like a QR code. The stencil appeared foreign to her, but it was readable by the machine. Unlike human tattooers, the machine also does not wipe away ink as it goes, so Bird says she didn’t’ see what the tattoo actually looked like on her skin until the very end. When the ink was wiped off, it revealed a hyperrealistic sliver of the Mona Lisa on her inner bicep.
“I love it,” Bird says. “It’s so funny because I get so much hate for it online.”
“Our fundamental unit is the dot — essentially a 0.25mm ‘pixel’ — which enables us to execute highly intricate tattoos with surgical precision.”
Around 18 months later, the tattoo looks largely unblemished, a rarity for tattoos in that realism style. That also isn’t necessarily her preferred aesthetic, but Bird says she wanted to experience the device firsthand.
“If I hadn’t gotten a tattoo for free, I’m not spending over a thousand dollars on a micro realism tattoo,” she adds.
The length of a session varies depending on the design. In every case, a human operator sits beside the machine and can override its recommended settings. During the tattooing process, the device automatically dispenses a lubricating liquid and a built-in suction system removes excess ink and fluids. This automation reduces the need to wipe already irritated skin, one reason tattoos can feel so uncomfortable. Most clients, Pennington says, report pain levels between zero and two out of 10.
“Our fundamental unit is the dot — essentially a 0.25mm ‘pixel’ — which enables us to execute highly intricate tattoos with surgical precision,” Pennington says. “Tattoo artists can leverage our technology to expand their creative possibilities — including intricate patterns, repeating geometric elements, and optical illusions.”
The small, precise dots created by the device have an unintended side effect: they’re relatively easy to remove. Pennington previously had a Blackdot tattoo of the Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness album cover by The Smashing Pumpkins on his forearm. When I met him, though, it had vanished almost without a trace. He says he canned it “to better understand the efficacy of tattoo removal for Blackdot tattoos.”
The tattoo was fully removed in just four sessions, a speedy outcome that Pennington attributes to the device depositing ink precisely at the epidermis-dermis junction. Because the ink is evenly distributed, there are fewer deep inkwells that are typically harder to remove, he said. Deep inkwells, which place ink further down the skin’s dermis can lead to increased pain and scarring after the fact. The dot-based technique, similar to a stick-and-poke, also leaves less scarring, which can otherwise interfere with laser removal.
“In practical terms, this capability enables some people to think a bit differently about tattoos,” Pennington says. “Tastes and preferences change over time. Not being perpetually locked into a tattoo is liberating.”
For now, the device is limited to tattooing relatively flat surfaces on arms and legs. Pennington notes Blackdot has “identified technical pathways” to expand to more complex areas like ribs and ankles, but that will require some hardware upgrades. In the studio, Pennington showed me a couple Blackdot tattoos adorning his arm. One was a small horizontal line of text reading “ZEITGEIST.” The other, located catty-corner on his bicep, was a cartoon image of a dragon playing a guitar that his daughter had drawn.
Bird, the content creator with the Mona Lisa tattoo, says she gets pushback online from members of the tattoo community for getting it. That hate mail, she says, doesn’t seem to track in the physical world, where she mostly receives compliments for the tattoo, even from other respected tattoo artists. Some of them quickly ask to take photographs of it.
“I show it to my tattoo artists and they’re like, ‘That’s so cool,’” Bird says. “And I assume my tattoo artists don’t bullshit me.”
The Blackdot device in Austin has performed around 250 tattoos at the time of writing, most them on early test subjects. (Pennington alone has nine tattoos from the device, though he is in the process of removing three of them to “reclaim some skin.” The true test of whether the technology can move beyond a demo phase is how it performs in a real studio with paying customers. That occurred earlier this week at the renowned Bang Bang tattoo studio in New York City. So far, it’s been a success. Pennington says more than 800 people have signed up to the waitlist to get a Blackdot tattoo at Bang Bang. They are in the process of scheduling the first 200 clients.
“There are few things that ever blow my mind,” Bang Bang says. “This blew my mind.”
“It will be better than anyone in the history of the world at doing certain things.”
For now, the device at the shop is only performing text-based tattoos. Clients can choose from a curated selection of fonts for their word or phrase. The team opted to start with small-scale text because Pennington believes the device may have an edge over human artists in that particular area. Text requires a high degree of symmetry and precision. Certain letters with sharp points, like W and M, are also potentially more susceptible to overlapping ink, which can result in a “blown-out” look. The device’s ability to accurately control the location and shade of each dot, he argues, means it can render various loops, serifs, and corners with a level of “finesse” hard for a human tattooer to consistently match. Currently, the studio charges the same price for a tattoo of comparable size whether it’s done by the machine or a human.
The device, on loan until 2026, moves between the studio’s main room, where it works alongside artists, and a smaller side area. Bang Bang notes that space is tight in his SoHo studio, which wasn’t exactly designed to accommodate a refrigerator-sized “robot.” While many tattoo designs and placements are still better suited to a human hand, he’s bullish about where the technology could be heading.
“It will be better than anyone in the history of the world at doing certain things,” he says.
That reckoning, he caveats, may still be quite a ways off. The current device (the only one of its kind) currently costs $120,000 to build, though Pennington claims Blackdot has a “clear path” to reduce the unit cost to around $50,000. Suffice it to say, your dependable neighborhood tattoo artists aren’t going away anytime soon.
Blackdot’s business model has two main components. First, the company plans to lease its device to select studios — and potentially fashion houses or med spas. Second, it aims to build a centralized tattoo “marketplace,” where artists — whether tattooers or other visual creators — can license their designs to Blackdot. A curated selection of these designs is made available to customers, who receive both the tattoo and an NFT (non-fungible token) certifying it as one of a kind.
Pennington says he was inspired by watching his daughter play Roblox and noticed how young people are “fanatic traders of digital assets.” These NFTs can be traded until the moment the design is actually tattooed. Blackdot is also considering a “legacy” option, allowing people to pass down their licensed design to someone else in the event of their death.
That may all sound pretty wacky on the customer end, but the concept does provide some material benefit for creators. Artists receive a royalty payment every time their design is executed by the device. In theory, that means an artist halfway around the world—or one who doesn’t tattoo at all — can still be paid for having their work permanently etched into someone’s skin.
Bang Bang says the royalty concept was a major consideration for him, especially in a period where tattoo artists are constantly having their work posted on social media and copied by others without credit.
Blackdot’s arrival in the tattoo world has been polarizing, to say the least. Prominent tattoo commentators and online critics have described the process as robotic and impersonal. Getting a tattoo, they argue, is more than a transaction with a pretty picture at the end; it’s a shared journey with an artist — a fundamentally human experience. Others have questioned the company’s claim that the device can eventually handle a wide range of tattoos beyond its current capabilities. Blackdot has also faced criticism for its pricing, with some designs costing up to $10,000 — well out of reach for most tattoo clients. And, as with many forms of automation, there’s understandable concern among artists who fear a machine like Blackdot could take away from their clients.
Bang Bang, the shop’s founder — known for tattooing celebrities like Rihanna, Selena Gomez, and LeBron James — tells The Verge he first learned about the device several years ago. After flying to Austin to try it on himself, he was immediately impressed, which eventually inspired him to bring one into his own studio.
Some tattoo artists aren’t sold on the vision, either. Austin-based tattoo artist Dillon Forte, who has previously collaborated with Blackdot, recently told The Wall Street Journal some in the tattoo community have expressed concerns over whether or not this technology could one day take their job.
Speaking with TMZ last year, Ink Master season 15 winner Bobby Johnson compared the machine to a “production line” in other industries, which results in products lacking a human touch. And while Johnson thought there is a market for the machine, he was skeptical about whether or not it could really compare to human artists when designing larger, more comprehensive pieces like full arm sleeves and back pieces.
“I would assume even if they [Blackdot] are further ahead than I think, they still have a long way to go,” Johnson told TMZ. “I think it’s stupid. I think it’s super dumb.”
Bird pushes back against some of the criticism and notes that traditional tattoo enthusiasts likely aren’t the clientele Blackdot is catering to in the first place. It’s simply too expensive. Many in the community, she says, are resistant to change.
“They’re worried about losing clients that they never had to begin with,” Bird says.
“There’s a lot of gatekeeping in the tattoo community for a community that’s supposed to be alternative and super accepting,” she adds. “People just shit on each other all the time.”
Pennington, who has been known to push back directly against criticism in YouTube comments, tells The Verge he would have been “naïve” to think his device wouldn’t generate controversy. That’s partly why, early in the company’s history, he brought on former pro skater and traditional tattoo artist Steve Godoy as an adviser. Godoy, who is one of the few heavily tattooed people featured in Blackdot’s promotional material, co-authored Tattoo Machines and Their Secrets, one of the more popular manuals for tattooers learning the craft. Pennington is also hopeful that backing from Bang Bang, a highly respected studio, will help further legitimize his approach. As for preserving the human element, he says Blackdot is exploring a model where clients can receive a tattoo while the artist who designed it joins remotely via video.
“This kind of virtual guest spot preserves the personal connection between client and tattoo artist, but in a completely new format — one that breaks down geographic barriers,” Pennington says.
Bang Bang, who has over 20 years of experience tattooing, adds that in some cases, the absence of a human artist could actually be a selling point. Some introverts and frequent tattoo collectors, he notes, might enjoy the comparably quiet, meditative experience.
As for artists concerned that machines could make them obsolete, Bang Bang has some blunt advice.
“If you’re threatened by this thing, then you got work to do,” he says. “Take a look in the mirror and work hard and do something that no one else does and be unique in your own way and you’ll be successful.”
Correction, July 7th: An earlier version of this story misidentified the type of liquid used. It is lubricating liquid, not sanitizing liquid. The process is not similar to how a tattoo artist wipes the skin, as previously noted. The wiping of the skin occurs at the end of the procedure.
]]>Over the years, Tesla has built part of its reputation on hosting big, bold events to generate authentic hype for upcoming releases. The robotaxi launch in Austin, Texas, last week wasn’t one of them.
Coverage of the rollout was dominated by a close-knit cohort of Tesla influencers and Elon Musk superfans, many of whom are openly supportive of the CEO’s vision. Journalists and tech bloggers who might have been more critical of the technology were not only excluded but also actively ridiculed and mocked by Tesla fans and some of their followers for attempting to ask basic questions about the service. In Austin and online, Tesla fans were taking a cue from Musk, who has spent years fomenting a culture of resentment toward critical media.
One of the more prominent influencers, who goes by Zack on X, claimed he was approached multiple times by a Reuters journalist, whom he promptly ignored. That post, which has over 2,000 likes, received supportive responses from other users — one wrote that the publication and other legacy media outlets “can go F themselves.” Another said they would unfollow any account that simply responded to members of the media.
“The best response would [be] to add a precondition and ask them to go on camera blanket apologising for all the lies and smears against Elon and Tesla first,” the account Tesla insights wrote. “That will shut them up, and make them think!”
That general sentiment reverberated across the parts of X and YouTube most actively covering the launch. Kim Java, a Tesla influencer with 258,000 YouTube subscribers, posted a comment saying she had been contacted by several major media outlets to speak about her experience but turned them down so she could “control [her] own narrative.”
The phrase “we are the media now” appears repeatedly in posts and replies related to the robotaxi launch. This so-called alternative media is now receiving the very same closed-door access many of them criticize legacy publications for indulging in.
The end result of that adversarial dynamic, experts tell The Verge, is a rollout that feels less like a transparent tech demo and more like a beta test — one amplified by livestreaming influencers who willingly promote Tesla’s marketing material. Much of that coverage unfolds within small echo chambers on Musk-owned X and YouTube, where receptive audiences have largely already made up their minds about the robotaxi’s significance. Boston University professor and Meme Wars author Joan Donovan says the rollout so far this week has been a textbook example of what she calls “corporate propaganda.”
“The big push around robotaxis is explicitly about recuperating the reputation of Tesla,” Donovan says. “It has a bit of an echo chamber effect.”
“The big push around robotaxis is explicitly about recuperating the reputation of Tesla,” Donovan says. “It has a bit of an echo chamber effect.”
Ed Niedermeyer, author of the Ludicrous: The Unvarnished Story of Tesla Motors, who filmed a robotaxi braking hard in the middle of the road when passing a police cruiser, echoes that sentiment and compares the influencers to a “Greek chorus” collectively working to bolster the robotaxi’s perception. Some of that narrative building appeared to be underway on the popular Reddit forum r/SelfDrivingCars. A user posting late last week claimed the forum has been “flooded with Tesla apologist propaganda and disinformation,” following the robotaxi launch. Niedermeyer claims he’s previously observed a Tesla employee moderating the r/Tesla forum.
“They know what their job is and Tesla knows how to use them,” Niedermeyer tells The Verge. Donovan and Niedermeyer are outspoken critics of Tesla. Both played active roles in the Tesla Takedown protests organized around the country earlier this year. Needless to say, they aren’t in the “superfan” club.
Tesla did not respond to our request for comment. The Verge also reached out to several of the influencers cited above but hasn’t heard back.
This week’s bizarre, influencer-led robotaxi event is the culmination of a yearslong evolution by Tesla to subtly cultivate its preferred media while simultaneously sidelining traditional journalistic outlets. Tesla has a long and bitter history of antagonism with the press. The company unofficially dissolved its PR team back in 2020 and has since made a point of dodging reporters’ questions about its products and tech stack. Since acquiring Twitter in 2022, Elon Musk has further tilted the playing field by periodically banning accounts critical of him and his companies.
At the same time, Tesla has built a loyal fan base, which Donovan compares to early Apple enthusiasts — eager to call out media critics as biased against Musk and the company. At first, much of that support was organic. The company attracted a devoted following of technologists, clean energy advocates, and entrepreneurs drawn to its willingness to take big swings at tough problems.
But as Niedermeyer notes, some of that enthusiasm has tapered off in recent years, due in part to a series of underwhelming demos — like last year’s lackluster “We robot” event, which raised new doubts about the company’s ability to deliver on its most ambitious promises around autonomy. Those who remain tend to be reliably loyal and often openly aligned with Tesla’s success.
Boosting Tesla’s image online has its perks. Many in the community share personalized referral codes, which can be redeemed for rewards ranging from a few extra Supercharger miles to discounts on a new car purchase. (Some Tesla owners allege they’ve been abruptly removed from the program after posting content critical of the company.)
“They know what their job is and Tesla knows how to use them.”
Loyal supporters in Tesla’s online ranks may also gain access to exclusive events, as appears to have been the case with the robotaxi launch. Those who own stock in the company, Niedermeyer says, have an even more direct incentive to ensure Tesla is seen in a favorable light.
“The product is so dope they don’t need a PR department,” YouTube creator and Tesla fan Galileo Russell said in an interview with CNN Business. “I got involved with Tesla to make sure the company succeeded.”
Operating in an echo chamber can only work for so long. Eventually, if Musk’s vision of millions of autonomous Teslas zooming through city streets is to be realized, the company will have to open its doors to the broader public — including its detractors. That risks exposing more of the company’s mistakes, which even influencers are already having trouble pushing aside.
“They know what their job is,” Niedermeyer says, “and Tesla knows how to use them.”
]]>Last week, a Tesla Model Y with the word “ROBOTAXI” scratched into its side and no one in the driver seat made a turn off Austin’s bustling South Congress Avenue. Another Tesla, described by autonomous vehicle experts as a “chase vehicle,” followed closely behind.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk commented on the clip, seemingly confirming that the lead car was one of roughly 10 vehicles comprising the company’s robotaxi fleet, expected to make their official debut sometime next week. If that does occur, it will come nearly nine years after Musk first pitched the idea of a “Tesla Network” in which Tesla owners could add their vehicles to an autonomous ridehail fleet. And it will also be made possible, in no small part, by the state of Texas’ laissez-faire, AV-friendly regulatory environment.
“In Texas, pretty much anyone can get a [autonomous vehicles] permit who shows up and does a few administrative things,” Carnegie Mellon professor and autonomous vehicle expert Phil Koopman tells The Verge. “If you show up and you tell the state you’re operating and you have insurance, you’re good to go. That’s about it.”
That AV-friendly landscape — accelerated by a 2017 law that openly courted developers to the state — has arguably made Texas the leader in AV testing and real-world deployment outside the industry’s California birthplace. More than 100 lidar-equipped Waymo vehicles now roam the streets of Austin, offering paid Uber trips daily. Amazon-backed Zoox and about half a dozen other emerging AV companies are regularly seen testing on public roads alongside human drivers and pedestrians. Autonomous 18-wheeler trucks weighing 30,000 pounds operated by Aurora have already logged more than 1,200 miles on Texas highways.
“If you show up and you tell the state you’re operating and you have insurance, you’re good to go.”
But that fast lane for AV innovation, while bringing millions in investments to the Lone Star State, has also raised concerns among some lawmakers and experts who say the approach may put safety in the backseat. Due to a bold carve-out in Texas law, local governments are powerless to set their own AV regulations. Tesla, with its tendency to play fast and loose with rules, only amplifies those concerns.
Last year, Austin Mayor Kirk Watson criticized the state’s move to preempt local oversight. And in an interview with The Verge, Democratic state Sen. Sarah Eckhardt says she’s “concerned about the rushed rollout of Tesla’s autonomous vehicle program.” Eckhardt, who recently sent a letter to the Central Texas legislative delegation outlining her concerns, says she will be working to ensure Tesla “slows their roll” ahead of the company’s proposed June 22nd launch.
The law states that AVs operating in Texas must comply with all traffic laws and be equipped with a video recording device, and it holds the vehicle’s manufacturer responsible when an AV breaks the law. But what’s more notable is what the legislation doesn’t say. As of now, there are no licensing or registration requirements for verifying the capabilities of autonomous vehicles, and no set standards for when a carmaker can remove safety drivers. Crucially, the law also states that no local government can enact regulations that supersede those of the state.
“Simply put, cities in Texas cannot regulate autonomous vehicles,” Richard Mendoza, the interim director of Austin’s Transportation and Public Works Department, wrote in a 2023 memo.
The legislation’s origins, according to lawmakers speaking with The Texas Tribune, dates to the early 2010s. At the time, there weren’t clear rules regarding AVs. Automakers and AV operators, through stakeholder meetings, wanted to encourage the passage of a law that removed the regulatory uncertainty and also didn’t overburden the industry with what they viewed as overbearing permitting requirements. As for the provision prohibiting cities from setting their own rules, University of Texas professor of transportation engineering Kara Kockelman says it helps avoid a patchwork of potentially conflicting laws that might make it difficult for AVs to travel between cities. But it can also create headaches for local officials who want more targeted regulations tailored to the specific needs or preferences of their city or region.
“Simply put, cities in Texas cannot regulate autonomous vehicles.”
That creates a far more permissive AV environment than in California, Koopman says. There, AV manufacturers are required to obtain a separate permit for autonomous deployment — a permit that local regulators have been known to revoke if a vehicle crashes. Texas, by contrast, takes a much more hands-off approach to removing safety drivers. Koopman notes that it is “entirely up to the companies” to decide when to go driverless. Even in stricter states like California, removing human drivers has sparked backlash.
Texas’ rules are poised to change. After years of advocates pushing for stronger guardrails, the legislature recently revised the 2017 law to require DMV approval before operating on public streets without a human operator. Those changes, however, don’t take effect until September 1st. Eckhardt, who was a leader in advancing the revision, wants Tesla to delay its launch until the new rules are in place. (Tesla and the Texas DOT did not respond to The Verge’s requests for comment.)
The rollout of AVs across the state is raising complex enforcement questions. Local lawmakers have reported feeling hamstrung because current rules prohibit them from advancing their own regulations. Last year, Mayor Watson, speaking at South by Southwest, said the situation hampers local officials’ ability to ensure safety.
“I’m all for profit margins and stuff, but ultimately the public good has to play a role in this, and it shouldn’t be sacrificed, and it shouldn’t be secondary to the profit of the private entity,” Watson said, according to The Hill.
Fast-forward to today, and local police are increasingly reporting difficulties dealing with the growing number of driverless cars. While some incidents are pretty funny — like an AV getting “stuck” in a taco shop parking lot — there have also been more serious reports of AVs unintentionally impeding emergency response vehicles. Austin police Lt. William White recently told Reuters that Waymo’s and the now-defunct Cruise’s AVs have a history of “freezing up” when responding to officers’ hand signals at festivals and other complex traffic situations.
“It’s been very frustrating on our end from a safety standpoint,” White told Reuters. “If these machines are learning, they’re not learning at a quick enough pace for sure.” (The mayor’s office and the police department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.)
Koopman notes that Musk’s “healthy risk appetite” may bring these tensions into sharper focus. Though it’s unclear just how autonomous Tesla robotaxis will be, experts worry its camera-only approach to the technology could cause more incidents. Simple traffic mistakes or crashes resulting in injuries could provoke a public backlash that affects not only Tesla but also other AV manufacturers like Waymo, which have taken a more cautious approach.
“If there is a major crash there is a risk that people will say, ‘Oh this is about the technology,’” Koopman says. The expectation for rollout, he adds, should be no serious missteps at all. “Being able to operate 10 cars with no serious crashes is table stakes,” Koopman says.
]]>Around 2009, Dweezil Zappa ran into a space problem. He was busy touring the US, performing some songs written by his father, Frank. Recreating those signature “peculiar sounds,” as Zappa calls them, required lugging around a massive rig — roughly the size of two large refrigerators — held together by more than 200 connections and cables.
“The challenge for me on tour was how can I recreate some of these sounds and not use the actual equipment that [Frank] used because some of it didn’t exist anymore,” Zappa says. “It was a pretty extensive system.”
Zappa began seriously exploring a still relatively new technology: guitar amp modelers. These briefcase-sized devices aimed to capture the essence of analog amplifier and pedal sounds, reinterpret them digitally, and deliver them with an audio fidelity comparable to the real thing. Zappa realized modelers were more than just a space-saver: they also opened up a new dimension of creativity. With the right tweaking, Zappa says he suddenly had almost any sound or effect he could imagine at his disposal.
“If I have to switch to another song [during a set] that is from 1981, I just step on a button,” Zappa says. “It’s like having a recording studio, the entire chain of the recording, at your feet.”
The world of digital or “simulated” amplifiers can generally be divided into two categories: amp profilers and amp modelers. Profilers capture an audio snapshot of a guitar rig’s sound and convert it into code, allowing the tone to be reproduced without the physical rig present. These profilers can be played through an actual amplifier or, more commonly, through a speaker system. Modelers, by contrast, analyze the tonal characteristics of an amp at a granular level and digitally replicate each of its individual components. This process simulates nearly every tube, preamp, and transformer, creating a fully digital “twin” made up of ones and zeros.
In both cases, the goal is to take an instrument’s signal, convert it into a digital format, and process it through the digital amp, adding tonal complexity and richness. While they may not be exact copies of their analog counterparts, most people — aside from professional musicians and audio engineers — won’t be able to tell the difference, especially in a live setting.
The hardware in these devices varies widely, but mostly consists of digital signal processing (DSP) chips and integrated circuits. Devices employ specialized algorithms designed to replicate the sound and behavior of various amplifiers and effects. Audio processing tools, such as waveshapers, manipulate waveforms to recreate the breakup that occurs in analog amplifiers when vacuum tubes are overdriven. In traditional analog amps, this physical process generates distortion, a defining characteristic that shapes an amp’s unique tonal qualities. Modelers replicate this effect by introducing audio clipping through digitally manipulated sound waves, effectively mimicking the distortion found in analog circuits.
Rapid innovation and competition in amp modeling technology over the past decade have made it a staple in modern recorded music. Modelers are also becoming increasingly common in live performances — a shift industry experts speaking with The Verge attribute to heavier touring schedules and growing acceptance among veteran guitarists.
Generations of emerging musicians may never actually play through a “real” tube amplifier. With modelers, these artists can experiment with digital recreations of vintage or rare sounds they might otherwise never have access to. In some cases, amp modelers may even allow the most obscure pieces of music equipment to live on digitally, long after the original parts and possibly the people who know how to maintain them, disappear.
The space is mostly dominated by products from Fractal Audio Systems, Line 6, Neural DSP, and Kemper. Neural DSP says it uses a robotic operator armed with a microphone to take audio recordings of incrementally adjusted gear, then processes that data through an audio interface and presents it to users as digital amp and effects presets. Neural DSP’s Quad Cortex device also has a “capture” function that allows musicians to connect their own analog setup and create a convincing digital replica within minutes. Fractal Audio, whose modeler Zappa uses, uses schematics and blueprints of analog amps to create digital versions of individual components like transformers and tubes. The ultimate goal, Fractal Audio’s director of corporate development Matt Picone says, is to build “virtual gear” that performs almost identically to its analog inspiration.
For most non-musicians, the difference in audio fidelity between an analog amp and a modeler is imperceptible — and has been for several years. Where modelers have fallen short, at least for some musicians, is when trying to imitate the more difficult to pin down “feel” of their tube predecessors. Feel broadly refers to both the physical sensation of air being pushed through amplifiers into a jam-packed room, as well as the precision and immediacy of a player hitting a note and getting instantaneous feedback. Modelers, like any digital technology, introduce latency. Even a millisecond of latency can be enough to impact an advanced player’s connection with their instrument.
“The goal with any system is to get the latency as low as possible so that the perceived experience is that of a physical rig,” Cooper Carter, a professional musician and production consultant who has helped lock digital guitar sounds for major artists like Metallica, Journey, and Def Leppard, tells The Verge. “In an analog environment, it’s literally operating at the speed of electrons moving through copper.”
Some, who Carter and others refer to as “tone purists,” argue modelers, sophisticated though they may be, still lack a quintessential human quality. Dave Friedman, a veteran amp designer who has helped craft custom equipment for guitarists like Eddie Van Halen and Jerry Cantrell, summed up that tension during a 2020 interview with guitar YouTuber Rhett Shull. Friedman acknowledged modelers are a “great tool” and can obtain good tones, but said he worried they allowed for less interaction between the performer and the amplifier.
“There’s an impact that the real thing has that the modeler doesn’t have,” Friedman said. “There’s no danger left.”
But Zappa and Carter both said the newest generation of advanced modelers deliver in terms of audio fidelity, realism, and feel. Zappa is currently using a modeler during live performances on a Jimi Hendrix tribute tour. Those improvements, Carter notes, are partly why many of those “tone purists” are finally coming around to the technology.
“We’ve reached the point now where even the best players in the world, when presented with their rig that they’ve toured with for 40 years and the modeler, many of them end up preferring the modeler, not only because of how it sounds, but also because of what it offers as far as creative freedom,” Carter says.
Both Carter and Zappa, it’s worth noting, still have a fondness for classic tube amps. Carter compares it to an old muscle car versus a new EV. The former is beautiful and nostalgic, but not necessarily the best daily tool.
”It’s rock and roll, but [tube amps] are susceptible to damage,” Carter sats. “They are heavy as shit [and] expensive. They are kind of one-trick ponies or, at the most, like three-trick ponies.”
But there are other more practical reasons for the transition. Carter says the recent uptick in modelers, especially in live performance settings, has coincided with the music industry’s growing emphasis on touring. Artists of all sizes are traveling more than ever, and one of the biggest expenses, Carter notes, is transporting gear. That gets real expensive, real fast.
“Every major tour that’s switched to [modelers] has saved a lot of money on cartage,” Carter said.
Modelers are also far less finicky and prone to breaking than cumbersome mounds of analog gear. Individual components in tube amps can easily get rattled and broken during transport, which can result in slightly varying sounds from day to day. They are also susceptible to the elements, something Metallica reportedly found out firsthand during the band’s 2013 Freeze ‘Em All concert in Antarctica. That performance, according to Guitar World, was conducted using solar power that did not provide enough energy to power the band’s traditional full rig — but it was enough power for a Fractal amp modeler. Now, more than a decade later, Metallica lead guitarist Kirk Hammett still uses a variation of that same modeler.
“I have a studio quality sound in my Fractal,” Hammet told music YouTuber Rick Beato. “Album quality sound. That’s a hard thing to do.”
Veteran touring musicians aren’t the only ones benefiting from the vintage tones captured in modern modelers. Newer artists — many of whom could never afford a rare vintage Fender amp from the 1970s — can now experience a close replica of that sound simply by plugging their guitar into a modeler. Carter says that’s possible, in part, because amp companies can’t patent or trademark a particular sound. Modeler companies have taken advantage of this, creating close digital recreations of classic amps with slightly altered names that clearly pay homage to their analog ancestors. The result: new artists can preserve and carry forward the iconic sounds of the past, even as the original gear that produced them fades into obscurity.
]]>