Because this statement, unfortunately, ends up moving the underlying goal posts about what self driving IS.

And the point that I am making, is that this view was never baked into the original vision of self driving, resulting in predictions of a velocity that was simply impossible.

Physical reality does not have vibes, and is more amenable to prediction, than human behavior. Or Cow behavior, or wildlife if I were to include some other places.

Marketers gonna market. But if we ignore the semantics of what full self driving actually means for a minute, there is still a lot of possibilities for self driving in the future. It takes longer than we perceive initially because we don’t have insight into the nuances needed to achieve these things. It’s like when you plan a software project, you think it’s going to take less time than it does because you don’t have a detailed view until you’re already in the weeds.

To quote someone else, if my grandmother had wheels, she would be a bicycle.

This is a semantic discussion, because it is about what people mean when they talk about self driving.

Just ditching the meaning is unfair, because goddamit, the self driving dream was awesome. I am hoping to be proved wrong, but not because we moved our definition.

Carve a separate category out, which articulates the updated assumptions. Redefining it is a cop out and dare I say it, unbecoming of the original ambition.

Networked Autonomous vehicles?

Yeah exactly. It’s kind of absurd to take the position that it’s impossible to have “full self driving” because Indian driving is different than American driving. You can just change the model you’re using. You can have the model learn on the fly. There are so many possibilities.