The point is that the automation system is better in some ways and far, far worse in others. And of course to also highlight that reducing the human in the loop to visual sensors is unreasonably reductive.

An interesting question might be if the automation system can be evaluated against the human perceptual system, or amalgamation of systems. This seems like an exceedingly difficult premise to evaluate though, given the varied and dynamic nature of the real-world driving environment.

The point being made above was that Teslas lack radar and lidar, but so do humans.

Your argument that human processing is superior to Tesla processing seems orthogonal (that's about how the data is handled, not about what input data is available).

The original claim was essentially that humans drive solely based on visual input. That perspective ignores how much past experience and expectation affect perception and decision making.

I think I would concede the argument that it's "just processing" once someone has recreated the processing in an automation system. That seems unlikely. Or when an automation system outperforms a human in every situation one might encounter in a chaotic driving environment.

I don't get why you keep bringing processing into a discussion about sensing. It's like someone said "apples come in more colors than lettuce" and you go "no, apples taste better"

This sub-thread discussion is not about sensing but about how humans drive. And for humans, sensing and processing are inexorably linked.

Your analogy is a bad-faith definition of orthogonal.

My original claim was that Teslas have at least as good a visual input system as humans, so that alone can't be a reason they're worse drivers.

That's all I meant to say.

>> Implying that driving just based on visual input is unsafe, when that is how all humans drive.

> ... Teslas have at least as good a visual input system as humans, so that alone can't be a reason they're worse drivers.

I don't think that's an accurate description of the original claim. At this point I do wish it had been. This perpetuates the discarding of how past experience affects perception, which seems like part of the "visual input system" of humans to me.

That the car’s model sucks was the bottom line of the prior comment. I’m begging some of you to learn how to read for context.