[ben_w]

Radar etc. almost certainly make it easier, but for it to be "never" this would also have to be provably impossible for humans.

Which isn't too say it's not never, as I remember studies in my own childhood that said human drivers were also bad at recognising how far away children were, and I've never heard of human perception of skin colour being tested in this way so it might just turn out that melanin is unfortunately good camouflage against tarmac…

…but unless and until that suggestion turns out to be correct of all humans, I default to assuming we're an existence proof of the capability to do without, and that means I still wouldn't say "never" to sufficiently advanced AI doing at least as well.

[wongarsu]

I'm confident that a comprehensive study would show that on average humans are worse at detecting people of color against dark backgrounds (if we agree this is code for "people with highly pigmented skin" and not Asians or Latinos). There is just much less contrast to work with, and dark skin also makes facial features stand out less (which is an issue because faces are the thing humans can recognize best).

There is a discussion we could have whether we want to measure self-driving cars against an ideal perfect baseline or against the status quo. But of course the ideal case is much easier to define, and has fewer things that make some people uncomfortable.

[seanmcdirmid]

I’m harder to see on a rainy winter night if I wear a black jacket vs a bright orange one. I learned early in it wear bright orange on those nights given that I was almost clipped by human driven cars a few time. Clothing choices are important.

[tbrownaw]

> But of course the ideal case is much easier to define, and has fewer things that make some people uncomfortable.

As another bonus, it also provides an extra excuse to advocate against replacing humans with AIs.