[trhway]

Birds have to flap wings while our planes don't have to. There is absolutely no reason to limit self-driving cars in the same way our bodies are limited.

When it comes to AI though, humans are using biological neural net much more capable than any today's AI you can cram into a car. So, even if one accepts your premise of targeting human performance as a design guideline, more sensors is still logical at this point as way to compensate for the weaker AI.

Also, if you read how Tesla does vision it is very different from, and i think inferior to, how your eyes and brain build the 3d map of the surroundings. If one is limiting oneself to only vision, the first thing would be to try to get as good as possible that 3d mapping, and the vision seems to be among the simplest and most researched brain functions, ie. easiest to reproduce. As Tesla doesn't seem to be doing it - only may be couple years ago they only started to elicit the 3d model - i think they aren't on the shortest path to success when it comes to FSD.

[meow_catrix]

Planes do ”flap their wings”, just not the ones protruding from the fuselage.

[trhway]

I think you're mistaking rotating for flapping. Rotation is one of those fundamental things differentiating our technological civilization from Nature.

[meow_catrix]

Those rotating things still produce their thrust by pushing a wing-shaped structure through air, producing a high-pressure zone on one side, and a low-pressure zone on another. That is what I was getting at. It is the same principle.

[trhway]

No, it is different. A prop or fan blade is inmovably attached to the shaft and pushed through the air the same way like the plane's wing, and the blade isn't flapped like the bird's wing.

[andsoitis]

> Rotation is one of those fundamental things differentiating our technological civilization from Nature.

Rotation is very common in nature.

Planetary rotation, inner-core rotation, spinning galaxies, dung beetle rolling, Keratinocyte migration, Rotifers, spirals, rotational symmetry, etc.

What isn’t common (but not non-existent) is using rotation for locomotion in biology.

[meow_catrix]

Many plants and trees spread rotating ”helicopter seeds”. Many vines roto-grow themselves around vertical supports. Day flowers rotate to follow the sun.

Apples and oranges fall on the ground and can roll far and wide. Walnuts too.

Partial rotation is still rotation, of course: see animal joints in walk, trot and gallop.

And then there’s the belly-up pig drunk on brewery grain rolling down the hill. That mash packs a wallop!

[andsoitis]

Yes! Which is why the idea that “ Rotation is one of those fundamental things differentiating our technological civilization from Nature” is not all that useful a statement.

[K0balt]

Huge swaths of microbes use electrostatic rotary motors driving screw type propellers, so if not say it’s that uncommon.

[eesmith]

Bacterial flagellum rotate. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_locomotion_in_living_... .