It's interesting that this is a level of tech reductionism that is really common right now and that it's not more openly challenged by engineers. Tough intractable problem? AI. How close are we? Soon! How soon? I don't know, I don't work on that problem.
Of course FSD is solvable with advanced AI and the same applies to all other problems but we don't yet have this level of AI and we don't know how far away we are from reaching it.
Companies that bet on assistive AI solutions (i.e. more sensors to plug AI gaps) will win and have the best chance at eventually reaching the level of AI where additional sensors are no longer needed.
Companies that go all-in on perfect AI have a very, very high chance of failure, not because they're not smart enough, or not driven enough, or are capital constrained, but because they dont fully understand the scope of the problem.
Also worth noting they are heavily incentivised to pump the AI bubble for existential reasons, and so their AI progress forecasts are not trustworthy.
Of course FSD is solvable with advanced AI and the same applies to all other problems but we don't yet have this level of AI and we don't know how far away we are from reaching it.
Companies that bet on assistive AI solutions (i.e. more sensors to plug AI gaps) will win and have the best chance at eventually reaching the level of AI where additional sensors are no longer needed.
Companies that go all-in on perfect AI have a very, very high chance of failure, not because they're not smart enough, or not driven enough, or are capital constrained, but because they dont fully understand the scope of the problem.
Also worth noting they are heavily incentivised to pump the AI bubble for existential reasons, and so their AI progress forecasts are not trustworthy.