>Are you suggesting that the 'something' it claims to be capable of doing is, explicitly, "driving 100% without human intervention That's exactly what it's att

>Are you suggesting that the 'something' it claims to be capable of doing is, explicitly, "driving 100% without human intervention That's exactly what it's attempting to do at a given point in time. It's just disclaiming fitness and holding the human driver responsible for ensuring that it doesn't screw up. >find the terms of some assistive device You've been had. You're buying into the alternative terminology scheme that oscillates between disclaimer words like "assistive" and sexy PR words like "Autopilot". And, the reality is that the car is not "assisting". It is taking full control from the driver and completely operating the vehicle at significant intervals; leaving the driver only to monitor it. I don't know how to make it any simpler. Beyond that, it's no secret that these companies are trying to achieve full autonomy, and they are already making claims that they are safer than humans, even denigrating human drivers in the process. But, they want those same fallible human drivers to be responsible for taking over when their tech fails. That's what's asinine. >You, the responsible driver, would never believe a child >you're not allowed to hand over responsibility to a piece of software Huh? I'm not sure if you're completely missing the point on purpose, but there's really not much more I can add.