No, there really aren’t yet. Driverless taxis and delivery vehicles are all “monitored” remotely by people who effectively drive them when they get into situations the automation can’t handle. Individual self-driving cars all come with a lot of warnings (which many drivers ignore) that they require an active and aware driver for similar reasons.
And Tesla, who have been lying about their self-driving capabilities from day one, continue to run people down and smash into other vehicles on a regular basis.
The systems are good enough to handle 99% of the driving situations they encounter. That remaining 1% is still a long way from being solved. And “pretty good” is not acceptable when failures kill people.
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.
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.
No, there really aren’t yet. Driverless taxis and delivery vehicles are all “monitored” remotely by people who effectively drive them when they get into situations the automation can’t handle. Individual self-driving cars all come with a lot of warnings (which many drivers ignore) that they require an active and aware driver for similar reasons.
And Tesla, who have been lying about their self-driving capabilities from day one, continue to run people down and smash into other vehicles on a regular basis.
The systems are good enough to handle 99% of the driving situations they encounter. That remaining 1% is still a long way from being solved. And “pretty good” is not acceptable when failures kill people.
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.
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.