[dwohnitmok]

> we are obviously still a long way from replacing humans as drivers.

This is only because we as a society have an extremely low tolerance for errors in automated driving and essentially require by default superhuman performance (a self-driving car with an error rate of the median human would never be allowed to be set loose by itself). In scenarios where a 0.1% error rate, 1% error rate, or maybe even 10% error rate are acceptable, AI is making huge strides.

> Just understanding the requirements of software will stretch the capabilities of AI for a few more decades.

I hope so. I'm not sure. And for a variety of reasons that's scary. What gives you a timeline of a few more decades?

[shakow]

AI is making stride in comparatively easy environments, i.e. highways and squared suburbs – when they don't crash into white trucks.

Now, what tends to be forgotten is that there AI-average vs. human average is that humans can also drive e.g. in Turin or Paris at rush hour, on mountain roads under the snow or in the Cornwalls roads while under tempest rains.

It's not that I believe that self-driving AI will never progress to this level, but let us be honest when comparing; they still drive themselves into fully-visible plots by daylight or run over cyclists at night.

[dwohnitmok]

> humans can also drive e.g. in Turin or Paris at rush hour, on mountain roads under the snow or in the Cornwalls roads while under tempest rains.

I'm not sure the median human driver can do all that.

[Jensson]

The roads in those places are full of median and below median drivers.

[lmm]

Plenty of humans (wisely) don't drive certain roads in the rain, or don't drive in big cities at all.

[shakow]

If you're trying to sell me that all drivers in e.g. European or Asian cities are above average humans, I am not buying it.

[darepublic]

The self driving cars aren't yet at ordinary human levels of competence