> Terrible analogy. I agree, it's a terrible analogy if I was attempting to make the argument you thought I was trying to make, per your explanation for why it

> Terrible analogy. I agree, it's a terrible analogy if I was attempting to make the argument you thought I was trying to make, per your explanation for why it's a terrible analogy. My point is that it's invalid to say that Waymo operators don't have "control" of the vehicle because it can refuse to perform some tasks. Because my car can refuse to perform some tasks too. The deeper point is that the difference between "in control" and "not in control" isn't binary. It's all points along a continuum. If a Waymo operator controls a vehicle remotely, it's not the same level of control as a human holding the steering wheel. But it's still control in the larger sense. If the operator wants the car to stop, it will stop. Period. If they want the car to perform some action that isn't stupid or dangerous (such as colliding with a pedestrian) it will perform that action. > If anything, calling FSD "autonomous" is highly misleading I agree. Which is why I didn't. In most situations FSD beta can handle the "full" task of driving. By "full", they mean it's not intended to be limited to a strict subset of task, e.g. only on highways. It can "fully self drive" the car competently at least ~99.9% of the time, as evidenced by the fact that it can routinely drive most roads reliably. Drives shown on YouTube are mostly owners intentionally looking for roads which flummox it, as that's how they show improvements as software updates are released. The challenges which preclude FSD from being a system capable of autonomy — the 0.1% of remaining error — isn't errors in spatial awareness or control surface failure. It's stuff like path planning and road sign interpretation, neither of which involve sensors that Tesla vehicles lack.