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 canno

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).