But say you bought a fleet of them just to rent out as a taxi service.
In fact, why not have a fleet of them be a taxi service? No people required.
That's related to this article. It was talking about who get to own the fruits of automation -- if I own a fleet of androids/robots and hire them out as lawyers or doctors (and they are fully trained and knowledgeable about whatever field I program them with), do I get full benefit from their employment?
What if I bought them from a tesla -- do they get to claim they are only licensing me the training SW that allows them to do the job, and therefore they can require I pay them a share?
Of course the above completely ignore the question of who developed the software or robots/androids and the likelihood that they are not unemployed because someone invented SW to write new SW for chosen professions that ended up putting themselves out of business... etc... of course, their "employers" own all the fruits of their labor... that's how capitalism works. You hire "workers" to do work for you, and you get the output of their work even if it is something that will permanently replace them. In other words, if they were worth $120K/year as a SW developer and @ age 25 developed SW that permanently unemploys them, is it really "fair" that they get nothing?
Note -- not talking about what is "legal", or what the employer can get away with, since that can change based on law. Example, it used to be the case in California, that employers could claim to own anything you developed while you were employed with them, though now, if you develop something outside work on your own time and equipment, then they don't automatically own your outside work (not true in all states and surely not all countries).
Nevertheless -- that law changed, so what was legal to do 30-40 years ago may not be legal now or tomorrow...