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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.