[lazyjones]

> doesn’t seem capable of solving it,

How so?

If humans can master driving with 2 eyes looking forward, why would a car with plenty of cameras in all directions not have sufficient sensory input to master it?

The problem is the software, not the sensors.

[ra7]

Same reason airplanes don't fly by just flapping their wings like birds. There's not always a biological equivalent for solving a problem, especially when you take into account human brain's evolution over millions of years. Sometimes computers need more help.

[notsapiensatall]

Large birds don't fly by flapping their wings when they have enough lift. Look at one in a thermal updraft sometime, it's quite a majestic sight.

If birds had engines on their wings, they would probably fly more like airplanes.

But cameras are a poor substitute for human vision, because they can't move or pivot or refocus much.

[dekhn]

It does seem reasonable, though, that if humans can solve safe driving with a brain mass (3 lbs) that computers wouldn't need that much more help. Put another way: every machine learning "expert" who has a kid is amazed to learn how simple unsupervised learning is and how few training examples are required.

[giantrobot]

You use far more input when you drive than just your eyes. Suggesting otherwise is just obtuse.

[wahnfrieden]

not much similar between eyes (incl the full sensory processing) and camera sensors

you're using elon's own argument btw, are you repeating that knowingly