No, not really true.

The way AI systems have been implemented in cars produces a flat image which we run through some fancy AI and the arrive at a conclusion. But what if 1 camera sees a child and for whatever reason, the other sees a clear road? The AI is not trained to process vision the way we do, where we use all our various senses including the conflicting info we get from each eye to arrive at a conclusion. It just does a merge and then process. It should process from each sensor, then reprocess to arrive at a conclusion

Nope, not a legit argument. Augmented human driving is way safer than autonomous cars. Fun fact, the half assed approach to autonomy used in Tesla’s are pretty shit, even by human standards.

Augmented driver assistance systems such as accident avoidance, preemptive braking and seatbelt tensioning systems still outperform current generation “fully” autonomous cars. The fact that we let billionaires develop their tech, for profit, in production (on the road), with a direct cost to human life, should always be a problem.

If he really wants to change the world, pay for the damn R&D, then deploy to the roads.

This is one of the comments that Elon Musk uses a lot when he says humans drive with their eyes, but its untrue. We actually have a wide array of sensory systems that help us drive. Firstly, we use our ears, eyes and body motion to drive. Secondly, unlike a fixed camera mounted on a car, our heads are in constant motion. This means that we cover blind spots better than a fixed camera, and we are able to determine if it’s a small deer really close by, and a large deer really far away. Our brains take multiple 3d images and stitch them together to determine size, distance and speed.

The best way to explain the driving using your eyes fallacy is basically to look at fpv RC cars, and see how much sensory information you have been robbed of while trying to pilot the vehicle