I’m willing to believe that machine vision would eventually become good enough to match or exceed human visual perception given the same inputs. But humans in

I’m willing to believe that machine vision would eventually become good enough to match or exceed human visual perception given the same inputs. But humans in a car have a massive advantage over little cameras that no one seems to discuss much: we have two sensors (eyeballs) mounted on a servo (our head) that can move around and is looking through a truly monstrous aperture (the windshield), and that aperture is equipped with fancy cleaning devices (wipers and cleaning fluid spray), and the car’s operator is motivated to clean the windshield and maintain the windshield, wipers, and spray system to be able to see. A Tesla car has little tiny camera lenses that are every bit as exposed as the windshield but don’t have all the compensating machinery. Go stick a pair of nice cameras on a three-axis servo mount with a range of motion of a whole foot (or a camera array and no servo), stick that two feet behind the windshield, train it well (use that massive parallax!) and I’d believe the result would be competitive in performance but definitely not cost. Also the car would lose an entire seat. Or use radar and lidar and achieve super-human performance. Fir what it’s worth, the military was and is fully aware that lidar and similar tech can outperform human eyeballs in “battlefield conditions”, and I’m aware of old DARPA projects to do things like pulsed laser range-gated imaging to see through fog and such. (You still get attenuation and scattering, but you can mostly disambiguate the additive signal from fog from the stuff behind it.) Lidar can do something similar. Humans can move their head to acquire more data. Little cameras are at the mercy of the fog and can only use fancy image processing to try to compensate.