Humans have only two eyes but we're producing a much more complex spacially variable map as we're looking around, along with highly dynamic exposure. We're also

Humans have only two eyes but we're producing a much more complex spacially variable map as we're looking around, along with highly dynamic exposure. We're also very good at pattern recognition, filtering out noise, and anticipating that certain objects are more or less trustworthy: telephone poles, very trustworthy, they don't move; pedestrians, very untrustworthy, they move sideways and backwards. I really don't think it's extreme to insist that a thing intended to replace humans, is at least as competent as humans. And a thing that can't even degrade itself, i.e. an "oh fuck I'm confused, abandon the turn in which I can't see, and keep going straight on the road I can see" is just a 100% fail. I'd go so far as to say anytime humans are intervening, that's a 100% fail, as in 0% trust should be extended. Such a system is acting capriciously. It really is all or nothing, just like the rules we apply to teenagers when they're learning to drive and get licensed.