Autonomous lifelong development and learning is a fundamental capability of humans, differentiating them from current deep learning systems. However, other branches of artificial intelligence have designed crucial ingredients towards autonomous learning: curiosity and intrinsic motivation, social learning and natural interaction with peers, and embodiment. These mechanisms guide exploration and autonomous choice of goals, and integrating them with deep learning opens stimulating perspectives. Deep learning (DL) approaches made great advances in artificial intelligence, but are still far away from human learning. As argued convincingly by Lake et al., differences include human capabilities to learn causal models of the world from very little data, leveraging compositional representations and priors like intuitive physics and psychology. However, there are other fundamental differences between current DL systems and human learning, as well as technical ingredients to fill this gap, that are either superficially, or not adequately, discussed by Lake et al. These fundamental mechanisms relate to autonomous development and learning. They are bound to play a central role in artificial intelligence in the future. Current DL systems require engineers to manually specify a task-specific objective function for every new task, and learn through off-line processing of large training databases. On the contrary, humans learn autonomously open-ended repertoires of skills, deciding for themselves which goals to pursue or value, and which skills to explore, driven by intrinsic motivation/curiosity and social learning through natural interaction with peers. Such learning processes are incremental, online, and progressive. Human child development involves a progressive increase of complexity in a curriculum of learning where skills are explored, acquired, and built on each other, through particular ordering and timing. Finally, human learning happens in the physical world, and through bodily and physical experimentation, under severe constraints on energy, time, and computational resources. In the two last decades, the field of Developmental and Cognitive Robotics (Cangelosi and Schlesinger, 2015, Asada et al., 2009), in strong interaction with developmental psychology and neuroscience, has achieved significant advances in computational