[ceilingcorner]

No, and the constant desire to apply the same scale of intelligence to dramatically different things is absolutely nonsense. A self-driving car does not need to understand the world in a way a human does, nor can it actually do so. It needs to understand the world in a way that enables it to successfully complete its assigned tasks. Full stop.

Is an orange as smart as a screwdriver? Is an ant as smart as a waterfall? Nonsensical questions. There is no such thing as a universal quality of intelligence.

[capableweb]

The article is not actually comparing the intelligence of babies with the "intelligence" of self-driving cars (since as you said, this makes no sense).

I cannot access the full article, but the leading paragraph says:

> BY THE AGE of seven months, most children have learned that objects still exist even when they are out of sight. Put a toy under a blanket and a child that old will know it is still there, and that he can reach underneath the blanket to get it back. This understanding, of “object permanence”, is a normal developmental milestone, as well as a basic tenet of reality.

So one could imagine the article is about "object permanence", something that is easier to compare between babies and self-driving cars. But not sure how interesting articles you can write about it (or interesting knee-jerk HN comments about said articles).

[mdp2021]

> I cannot access the full article

(You missed the link to the copy at archive.is :) )

[binwiederhier]

I encourage you to read the article (see link to full article below), or at least the first few paragraphs, and you'll notice that what you think you know from the headline is not what this article is about.

[ceilingcorner]

I did read the article, prior to posting my comment. My thoughts remain the same.

I encourage you to not assume you know what others are thinking.