Right, so you're saying that actual reality is too hard for self-driving systems to deal with, so we should change reality in order to coddle the self-driving cars so that they can handle it.

...which reinforces the point me and the grandparent post was making: You can't solve self-driving without AGI.

We change reality all the time to adapt to new technology - this is why we interacted with the first computers via punch cards rather than microphones and cameras. Were we coddling computers? Kind of, but solutions have to be a combination of what is possible.

I guess there is a sliding scale with self driving cars:

* Low technology, high societal or infrastructure change (for example we could build a totally different road network and dig cables into it, not practical but possible with technology 20 years ago!) * Medium technology, medium societal or infrastructure change. * High technology, low societal or infrastructure change. * Very high technology, no/little societal or infrastructure change (eg AGI that can interpret hand signals).

All of these are possible versions of self driving cars - there is no “one” solution. Having AGI and going for the last bullet point isn’t the only option.

As an example, when the 1950s imagined robotic vacuum cleaning they pictured a standing robot that would use your existing appliances - so they might have said “we need to work out how to pick up and use a household vaccum cleaner in order to make a useful household robot, which requires AGI!”. We now know that a better solution is the roomba, and AGI isn’t required.

I personally think we will inevitably need some level of societal change, legislation change and possibly even infrastructure change to make self driving cars happen sooner.