[fastball]

"today"? Are there not humans on the road today? There have been a number of safety issues with Waymos, certainly too many to describe them as the one true safe option, today.

Entertaining a No True Scotsmen is a bit of a silly exercise anyway, but this semantic game is extra silly.

[Dylan16807]

The person you replied to was talking about how we can achieve safe autonomous driving today. When I remind you of that context, that your rebuttal is not actually rebutting what they said, I am not performing No True Scotsman.

The gap between humans and computers is enormous, not some weird gotcha tactic.

[fastball]

I literally rebutted that context. Waymos are not safe autonomous driving today, they have caused various safety issues in the era of "today". I didn't include "today" in my original comment because none of the available options are "the only true safe way to do it today", but I don't think it is constructive to just say that.

No True Scotsman was obviously in reference to GC, not you.

[Dylan16807]

"Waymos are not safe" could be a rebuttal to what they said. "There are many safe humans" is not a rebuttal to what they said. Your comment above was the latter.

> No True Scotsman was obviously in reference to GC, not you.

I'm unsure what they said that would qualify. Was it adding "true unsupervised"? I think that's a fair qualification, because most of the point of self driving is lost if I can't look away from the road.

[alwa]

I took "it" to imply "autonomous driving." But I very much agree this is extra silly.