> I believe the argument is the software will improve to eventually be as good or better than humans, and I have a hard time not believing that, not because the

> I believe the argument is the software will improve to eventually be as good or better than humans, and I have a hard time not believing that, not because the software is good but because we are very bad in aggregate. But logically this doesn't really follow, does it? That because humans are not capable of doing something without errors a machine is necessarily capable of doing it better? Your argument would be more compelling if Tesla Autopilot logged anything like the number of miles in the variety of conditions that human drivers do. Since it doesn't, it seems like saying that the climate of Antarctica is more hospitable than that of British Colombia, because fewer people have died this year of weather-related causes in the former than the latter.