Appreciating the discussion. :)

So am I! I'm actually sorta considering writing my thesis about this topic.

You can argue that it's a crutch right now, but in the future it will be touted as a feature.

They aren't mutually exclusive. The important distinction here is what the system is based on: geographical, stored data or sensory input. Google's car is based on stored data, but uses laser input to fill in the blatant gaps in its database, like other cars, people and traffic lights.

What I'm mainly arguing is that I think a system based on sensory input, with additional database input, is what Google should be making, but it doesn't appear that they will do so (at least not based on what I've read and what I know about the company. This can change of course). Stored data needn't be abandoned, I just don't want my self-driving car to rely on Google's database. 'Real' self-driving cars (cough notruescotsman) are cars that can drive anywhere, on their own, just like a human being.

The benefit here is that the AI can be massively improved by stored data. But I'm thinking more of Waze-like live-reporting of the road's errors, which your self-driving car can then adapt to.