> Go ahead and do it then. Show them how it is done. :) One of my weekend projects is a POC demo for how something like this works. Maybe I'll launch it here,

> Go ahead and do it then. Show them how it is done. :) One of my weekend projects is a POC demo for how something like this works. Maybe I'll launch it here, or maybe I'll use it to establish a new autonomous region with an air defense perimeter, tbh, I haven't quite decided, but your insight is valuable. I'm saying what people think is a "self-driving car" is effectively a fully autonomous robot that has to navigate among humans, and presenting it as just solving a car operation problem is misleading. The problem they are solving is creating a virtual android to replace taxi, bus and truck drivers, which is surely a great and noble pursuit, but as a consumer product, it's the wrong problem. Some of the smartest people I have ever met have given it a lot of thought and disagree with me, but when you look at what every single other generalized robot product has succeeded at, it's in scaling human ability and in very limited tasks. Self-driving cars do neither of these things. It's not a car problem and using cars is a misleading constraint. Your maximum upside is some nuanced variation of a train or a streetcar on dedicated roads or paths/rails that is totally dependant on new public infrastructure to support it. Maybe you get self-driving golf carts and ATVs for limited contexts, just like other robots, but a general purpose one to replace drivers without dedicated lanes, air routes, or infrastructure is implausible. I'd focus on solving autonomous navigation in more narrow contexts like dedicated lanes and rails, flying, trails, and anything that doesn't have to deal with human obstacles. Otherwise, the failure mode of self driving cars is just a hunter/killer robot with limited commercial applications.