> And third, the world has almost entirely been rebuilt to compensate for human observation flaws.
I don't entirely agree with what I think your point is. Fundamentally, humans are pretty great at using context to work their way through a variety of unfamiliar situations. The work we do on intersections is about tuning. Even in a bad intersection with horrible flaws, 99.9% or more of all humans navigating it will be successful. The reason we keep tuning them is because our tolerance for death is zero. 1 death for every 100M miles driven is pretty good, but many people still find it completely intolerable. We're going to keep tuning.
But I don't think that means that making roads safely navigable by algorithms is going to be a simple matter of tuning them.
> Even in a bad intersection with horrible flaws, 99.9% or more of all humans navigating it will be successful.
I think you will almost universally see that everything in a human slows down a lot when dealing with unfamiliar and/or difficult situations. In driving, this easily causes damage.
When difficult enough we start relying on social behavior ("you go first and tell me how it went") to find something vaguely resembling acceptable performance, then go away and never touch it again.
I don't entirely agree with what I think your point is. Fundamentally, humans are pretty great at using context to work their way through a variety of unfamiliar situations. The work we do on intersections is about tuning. Even in a bad intersection with horrible flaws, 99.9% or more of all humans navigating it will be successful. The reason we keep tuning them is because our tolerance for death is zero. 1 death for every 100M miles driven is pretty good, but many people still find it completely intolerable. We're going to keep tuning.
But I don't think that means that making roads safely navigable by algorithms is going to be a simple matter of tuning them.