A human driver does not have to call a remote operator if the traffic lights are off.
This situation does not require a sophistic argument that we are not autonomous because we rely on the sun. If a child walks alone to school without asking for directions, it walks autonomously. If it has to call its parents or uses a GPS phone, it is not autonomous. This is really not that hard.
Certainly. However it shouldn't be too difficult to imagine a scenario where the typical human driver would not know how to respond in a safe manner. Thus the presence of "uncertain how to respond" in a limited subset of scenarios remains consistent with the term "autonomous" as it appears in general usage.
> If it has to call its parents or uses a GPS phone, it is not autonomous.
You ought to be able to imagine plenty of scenarios where this would be the case (ie the child got lost) and yet clearly you still believe the child to qualify as autonomous. Analogously, the vehicles are not necessarily disqualified as being considered such despite being unable to independently navigate in some subset of scenarios.
If it has to call its parents or uses a GPS phone, it is not autonomous. This is really not that hard.
Obviously your point here highlights your pedantry: autonomy is not absolute. Despite being a mostly functioning and definitely autonomous human being, I sometimes have to call someone who knows better to ask for directions.
A child only knows the way to school because outside influences have previously shaped the path that they are expected to follow. They're motivated to walk there because present influences seek to enforce the necessity of accomplishing this task.
Even the mere existence of a predetermined destination (in this instance, the location of a particular school that they did not choose themselves) is influential to their behavior.
If we use the definition that you're so defensively in favor of, then it is impossible for this child to be walking to school autonomously.