[cmendel]

Because the generalization changes the question. There is a world between "can drive 90 % of the time on 90% of roads" and "can drive 100% of the time on 100% of roads." The former is still extraordinarily valuable, the latter effectively impossible. When you conflate the two there really isn't even a point in having a discussion.

In the given example "driving in a parking lot +rain" it's completely reasonable to pass the buck to the human driver. In your example "driving +rain" you can't because that situation occurs well more frequently.

[chx]

> In the given example "driving in a parking lot +rain" it's completely reasonable to pass the buck to the human driver.

People like me are only looking forward to completely autonomy -- I am forbidden to drive, you see.

And it gives me some perspective... I believe society would benefit enormously if it didn't treat "everyone can drive" as a truism. If you were to break down what the concept "drive" means in terms of simultaneous tasks a human most be capable of performing you would quickly see how utterly ridiculous it is -- with devastating results in how urban environments have transformed and how many deaths are on the roads.

[BubRoss]

> People like me are only looking forward to completely autonomy -- I am forbidden to drive, you see.

This thread is about automated driving from a systematic point of view, it isn't about you.

> if it didn't treat "everyone can drive" as a truism.

No one said that or implied that anywhere here. You hallucinated some sort link between this conversation and your own frustrations.

[ghaff]

The former is very valuable so long as:

- The handoff of control to a person is well-defined and not too sudden

- You accept that autonomous driving is essentially a convenience and safety feature with a competent driver behind the wheels at all times. No using an autonomous car to drop little Jimmy off at soccer practice. (And no summoning a shared robo-taxi service.)