The assumption that ML lacks reasoning is outdated. While it doesn’t "think" like a human, it learns from more scenarios than any human ever could. A vision-based system can, in principle, surpass human performance, as it has in other domains (e.g., AlphaGo, GPT, computer vision in medical imaging).
The real question isn’t whether vision-based ML can replace humans—it’s when it will reach the level where it’s unequivocally safer.
As soon as we have hard data from real world use and FSD is safer than the average human, it would be unethical to not solve the regulatory and legal issues and apply it on a larger scale to save human lives.
If a human driver causes a crash, the insurance pays. Why shouldn't they if a computer caused the crash, which drives safer overall, if only by let's say 10%.
What makes you assume that a vision based system performs worse than the average human? Or that it can't be 20 times safer?
I think the main reason to go vision-only is the software complexity of merging mixed sensor data. Radar or Lidar alone also have their limitations.
I wish it was a different company or that Musk would sell Tesla. But I think they are the closest to reaching full autonomy. Let's see how it goes when FSD launches this year.
Vipassana meditation. There are centers all over the globe offering free 10 day courses.