Jacky Chu on Why Every Machine Starts From Zero

Jacky Chu is the founder of WPARK, a Cambridge deep tech venture building AI traffic control for real-world movement, starting with parking and scaling toward citywide flow. He co-founded it with his sister Mabel Chu, WPARK's COO, who brings experience from LSEG, Citi, Amazon and Rolls-Royce Motor Cars.

Before WPARK, Jacky started his first company in Hong Kong fintech and worked across American Express, HP's Cambridge Security Lab, and Rolls-Royce Motor Cars. He has been named a 30 Under 30 Climate Changemaker, and WPARK was recently named UK Breakout 50 by Tech Nation.

We sat down to talk about shared spatial memory for autonomous machines, what should never be automated away, and what he wants from building once it stops being about proof.

Q&A

Question 1: You’re working on making industrial environments more intelligent and sustainable. What ordinary problem do you think society has learned to tolerate unnecessarily?

We’ve somehow learned to tolerate every machine starting from zero. A factory or airport can bring in autonomous systems from several manufacturers, and each may build its own map, memory and understanding of exactly the same place. That sounds like a technical inconvenience, but it becomes a real barrier to scaling autonomy.

You can already see the industry trying to solve parts of this problem. DHL says it has deployed more than 8,000 collaborative robots, while integrating individual robotics technologies historically took six to eight weeks. Its standardised integration approach can now make deployment up to 12 times faster (DHL, 2026).

A recent conversation with a senior Waymo product leader made me think about what comes next: not just connecting machines, but connecting what they know. Why should twelve machines operating in the same warehouse maintain twelve separate memories of the same place?

The place itself should be able to remember what its machines have learned.

Question 2: As technology becomes more autonomous, what part of human life should never be optimized away?

I don’t think we should optimize away human presence. For decades, the safest way to use industrial robots was often to separate them from people - put the machine behind a barrier and design the environment around it. But that model is changing. Robots are increasingly mobile, autonomous and operating in spaces originally designed for people.

The scale of that transition is already significant. Global manufacturing robot density has more than doubled in seven years, and Western Europe now has around 267 robots for every 10,000 manufacturing workers(International Federation of Robotics, 2024). At the same time, NIOSH says the growth of workplace robotics has created new questions around human-robot interaction, while safety guidance increasingly has to consider people and robots sharing the same spaces (NIOSH, 2024).

So I think the interesting challenge isn’t how we remove humans so machines can operate perfectly. It’s how we make autonomous systems intelligent enough to understand and coexist with us- our movements, our unpredictability and ultimately our right to remain part of these environments. The best autonomous world isn’t one without people. It’s one where machines are intelligent enough to live alongside them.

Question 3: “When you’re no longer trying to prove that an idea can work, what kind of life are you ultimately trying to build?”

I think there’s a difference between building because you have something to prove and building because you genuinely love creating things. Earlier in life, achievement can become a scoreboard - the next job, award or milestone. But eventually you realise there will always be another one.

My own journey has moved from fintech and recognition through Alibaba, to being named a 30 Under 30 climate change-maker, and now building in deep tech, named UK Breakout 50 by Tech Nation. Each milestone felt important at the time, but what I’ve increasingly realised is that the freedom to choose what is worth building matters more than the recognition that follows.

The life I want is one where I still build ambitious things, but from curiosity rather than pressure - with time for the people I love and enough perspective to enjoy the journey while it’s happening.

I don’t think I ever want to stop building. I’d just like to reach a point where I no longer need building to prove who I am.

Question 4: “You’ve received recognition from Alibaba, P&G, and several innovation competitions. Did success make you more ambitious, or more selective about what matters?”

Probably both. Early recognition made me more ambitious because it showed me that an idea that starts very small can travel much further than you imagine. It gave me opportunities to pitch, then to speak, and eventually to be in rooms I never expected to be in.

But over time, that changes your relationship with recognition. You start asking not just, “What can this opportunity do for me?” but “What can I do with the access it gives me?” Whether that means helping another founder, opening a door for someone, or choosing a harder problem because you now have the network to attempt it.

So I haven’t become less ambitious. I’ve become more selective about what I’m ambitious for - and more conscious of who else can benefit from it.

Question 5: “After working at American Express, HP, and Rolls-Royce, what have you learned about trust in complex systems-and in people?”

Those three environments taught me trust from very different angles. At American Express, trust is fundamental because people expect financial systems to work every time. At HP, particularly around technology and cybersecurity, I learned that trust also means knowing what happens when something goes wrong. And Rolls-Royce showed me the engineering side - when you're dealing with complex physical systems, small details and rigorous processes matter enormously.

What stayed with me is that trust doesn't come from believing something will never fail. It comes from understanding its limits, knowing who is accountable, and having confidence in what happens when the unexpected occurs. I think that's equally true of people

Question 6. “You’ve worked across finance, cybersecurity, engineering, and entrepreneurship. Which chapter changed you most as a person?”

Each chapter taught me a different language. Finance speaks in value and risk, cybersecurity in vulnerabilities, engineering in constraints, and entrepreneurship in customers and possibilities. Moving between them taught me not to become too attached to one way of seeing a problem.

The biggest lesson was learning to change hats. Sometimes a problem needs you to think like an engineer, sometimes like a customer, and sometimes you need to forget both and simply ask why anyone should care. I think being able to move between those perspectives has shaped me more than becoming an expert in any single one.

Question 7: “You’ve moved from Hong Kong fintech to Cambridge deep tech-what part of your original background still shapes how you build?”

Starting my first startup in Hong Kong gave me a very strong bias towards speed and practicality. It’s an incredibly dense city where finance, transport, infrastructure and millions of people have to work together every day. You quickly notice that the best technology isn’t necessarily the most sophisticated - it’s the one that removes friction from a complicated system.

Cambridge added something different. Deep tech is rarely built by one person or even one company. Here, you’re surrounded by researchers, engineers, founders, universities and people who are remarkably willing to make an introduction or challenge an idea. It taught me that while founders build companies, ecosystems make ambitious companies possible.

So I think I’ve carried Hong Kong’s speed into Cambridge, but Cambridge has taught me the value of building with a community around you.

“It takes a founder to start a company, but an ecosystem to make a transformative one possible.”