[baybal2]

Possibility 9 — nobody does, because there is no such thing as self-driving.

The whole name "self-driving" is invented to pull the wool on public's eyes, and is a misnomer.

It's fundamentally clear to anybody moderately technically literate that what "self-driving" companies can't be called "driving," yet there are way more studied, and credited people than us here working in these companies who know that, and stay silent.

[jefftk]

Self-driving, as in there's no one driving the car, it drives itself. No human labor proportional to miles driven. How is that a misnomer?

[baybal2]

I would consider something capable of passing an arbitrary variation of DARPA Grand Challenge in urban traffic conditions repeatedly as something close to genuine "driving," but not the current "driving on rails" approach.

[hiptobecubic]

1) you clearly don't know what the cars are capable of today.

2) many (most?) licensed drivers today could not pass difficult urban driving tests without violating a zillion laws and taking totally unsafe risks that people would never allow robots to gamble on.