> That's just your opinion, while my comment is a statement of reality as it stands. No, perhaps I am to blame for incomplete quoting, but you're asking for ev

> That's just your opinion, while my comment is a statement of reality as it stands. No, perhaps I am to blame for incomplete quoting, but you're asking for evidence about the future, whether machine learning will be able to tackle this problem. So it's not just about current computers but also future computers. We can make predictions, but hard evidence would require a time machine or some first-principles proof that humans are the optimal arrangement of atoms for car control. > however the results are just not there. Well of course, but what information does that add to the discussion? That level 5 autonomy is an achievement that lies in the future is a premise of this thread and I think most people take this as fact. Bemoaning the absence of evidence for the results of a technology that's expected to only arrive in the future... doesn't make sense.