But you ACKed it and propagated the vacuous Subject (even though the Subject was older than the troll's sock puppet, which confuses the situation). Maybe you could clarify your point, starting with a Subject that actually describes what you're trying to say?
My [fresh? tangential?] point is relating the self-driving cars application to the space-settlement problem as described in A City on Mars by the Weinersmiths. They actually like the idea of living in space, but think it needs to be based on a broad infrastructure developed over time, rather than basing settlements on a mad race to grab profits. I would map it to the "gold rush" mentality that motivates some suckers, but mostly destroys them with the actual profits going to the middlemen selling shovels (or cars in this story). Seems to me as though Europe is taking a more reasonable attitude of trying to solve the problems in a thoughtful way and letting the gold diggers kill themselves in other places until the technology actually matures. (Not sure if I actually recommend the book. It's well written, but I'm almost finished and so far it hasn't said much that seemed new or surprising. And a major omission regarding solar power via mirrors and ye olde steam turbines... The water-in-space problem does need to be solved first, but if you have enough water then steam-powered electricity is a quite mature technology.)
I'm not dismissing the employment problems, but they are much bigger than self-driving cars. And I am increasingly skeptical that we can find any solution compatible with the continued survival of homo sapiens. I hope our AI successors do better, but they can't do worse...