I don’t know the specifics and have no dog in the fight, but the argument is flawed here. Human eye sight is in some ways better than small form factor cameras, eg anti-glaring, dynamic range, light sensitivity at night. Also, our vision is quite bad at some stuff, for instance distance estimates have a high error rate. You can do a lot better than that.
Tech is not biology, so in order for a computer to not do something stupid, it generally needs different sensors. Some sensors (depth gauge when scuba diving, altimeters for planes, or even gps) are obvious examples of when tech outperforms humans and is safety critical. Just because humans can drive doesn’t mean computers should replicate our “control loop”.
> Also, our vision is quite bad at some stuff, for instance distance estimates have a high error rate. You can do a lot better than that.
Our distance estimates are quite good at human scales, especially when compared to vision based approaches. We don't have great precision (we will never say something like "it's 19.7m away") but we very rarely grossly misestimate (think something is 10m away when it's actually 200m away or 10cm away).
Of course, compared to a LIDAR or advanced techniques used in physics, we don't hold the tiniest candles (say, if we were to compare to LIGO's distance measurements).
Tech is not biology, so in order for a computer to not do something stupid, it generally needs different sensors. Some sensors (depth gauge when scuba diving, altimeters for planes, or even gps) are obvious examples of when tech outperforms humans and is safety critical. Just because humans can drive doesn’t mean computers should replicate our “control loop”.