> Most of us are able to drive instinctively, without fully engaging all of our attention; we certainly aren't solving problems with deep analytical thinking D

> Most of us are able to drive instinctively, without fully engaging all of our attention; we certainly aren't solving problems with deep analytical thinking Depends. Many of the type of situations where FSD runs into trouble or disengages are also the ones where a human would slow down/pause and ponder a moment what to do next. In the FSD case, it then often eventually gives up and disengages, because it can't confidently predict what action to take. Humans show better performance in those cases. If you ask me what separates a human from ChatGPT right now, it's that ability to use reasoning to fill in for bad training data. If, as some people have posited, the training data for ChatGPT-like systems is possibly already exhausted, we need some new ideas. But humans are good at that. :-) Aside from that, note also that your learned instinctive predictions take into account many more parameters than the models a Tesla currently runs anyway. For example you have an understanding of social dynamics (so what those other human drivers think and what might be acting on them, etc.) that is far in excess of what the Tesla models can learn implicitly from videos that observe them driving. With some of these things we have no idea yet how to feed them into the models.