> "Human vision is so much more capable than the vision of a car equipped with seven 5-megapixel cameras, only one of which is narrow-view, while all the others are wide-view. So you’re basically dispersing those 5 megapixels in a way that makes the actual effective vision more like 20/60 or 20/70. The rest of the cameras in a car like that wouldn’t even pass a DMV vision test"

But we already knew all of this. This is not news. This did not need an article.

The rest is the tired "redundancy" argument, which is also not new:

> "If you have been following the autonomous driving space, you know the debate: Elon Musk believes that since humans drive with eyes (cameras) and a brain (neural nets), cars should be able to do the same. Krafcik, along with the vast majority of the industry, believes that redundancy via LiDAR and radar is non-negotiable for safety."

I really hate this framing.

Redundancy is the least important aspect. Humans just don't drive with "eyes" in the first place. Humans drive with eyes behind lids that squint, inside a head on a neck on a torso on a butt, each part of which has substantial freedom to rotate and move around in space. Your eyes have 6 degrees of freedom plus adaptive light filtering, all of which cyclically respond to the brain's desire to understand the road. Tesla cameras do none of that.

We actually have no idea at all if a vision only approach would work just as well as a lidar system, because nobody has tried a vision only approach that reproduces any meaningful fraction of the human vision system.