Wait, why not? The definiton of separate infrastructure seems arbitrary. GPS relies on satellites. Is that separate infrastructure?
Humans use road signs and lights and... We created separate, additional infrastructure for ourselves as drivers. Why wouldn't we add infra to "help" autonomous cars? Can't a car that senses RFIDs at every corner be considered autonomous, full self-driving? How is that different from sensing road markings via camera?
If the issue is just a terminology one, to distinguish "full self driving" versus "full self driving with fully self-contained reasoning" or whatever I must object - that's not how these terms get defined.
Tesla is arguably misusing the term "full" because it doesn't operate to the level we'd expect; not because of whatever resources it uses to function
If this is too long -
tl;dr: I think the absolute majority of people won't mind calling a car that requires _any_ additional infrastructure (including communication with other cars) a "full self-driving" car. As long as it drives itself 100% of the time without a human driver, it's full self driving.
"Separate infrastructure" means it's separate. GPS is not separate, you can use it no matter which road you are on. Streets and rails are (usually) separate, a vehicle for one can't use the other. That's what may be necessary for fully autonomous vehicles.
Exactly, the original comment I was replying to was suggesting we'd have "full self driving" where the autonomous vehicles were on completely seperate roads that humans didn't use.
If a robot can't deal with a human cyclist or someone crossing the street the that is not remotely self driving.
That's the difference between L4 and L5 automated driving. L4 works in specific locations that have special infrastructure, L5 is supposed to work everywhere, even on a dirt road up a nameless hill in the country.
Humans use road signs and lights and... We created separate, additional infrastructure for ourselves as drivers. Why wouldn't we add infra to "help" autonomous cars? Can't a car that senses RFIDs at every corner be considered autonomous, full self-driving? How is that different from sensing road markings via camera?
If the issue is just a terminology one, to distinguish "full self driving" versus "full self driving with fully self-contained reasoning" or whatever I must object - that's not how these terms get defined.
Tesla is arguably misusing the term "full" because it doesn't operate to the level we'd expect; not because of whatever resources it uses to function
If this is too long -
tl;dr: I think the absolute majority of people won't mind calling a car that requires _any_ additional infrastructure (including communication with other cars) a "full self-driving" car. As long as it drives itself 100% of the time without a human driver, it's full self driving.