• dev_null@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    They not working in all cases is a qualifier you are adding yourself though. There are definitely existing self-driving cars. There are no self-driving cars that can handle all situations, but being perfect or finished is not a prerequisite for something existing.

    • Curious Canid@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      I understand your point, but I disagree. There are currently no cars that are considered fully self-driving as defined by the people who created them. Except for the ones that are really just remotely driven, they all come with warnings that a human the driver must be at the controls and paying attention.

      Current self-driving cars are like a printer that works most of the time, but requires a human to read everything it produces and to occasionally write in a few things that it missed or got wrong.

      • dev_null@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        Current self-driving cars

        So you agree they exist. You are just saying they are not good. Just like the printer that only works sometimes is still a printer that exists, it’s just bad at being one.

        But we are just arguing semantics.

        • Curious Canid@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          It is mostly semantics. I answered the way I did primarily because I was responding to “There are already self-driving cars, aren’t there?”. That seemed to be asking about functionality, not naming conventions.