While humans are incredibly complicated, there's a finite number of options they have while driving a car which are distinctly limited by physics. Autopilot doesn't need to replace the entire human brain, it just needs to replace a brain driving a car, and interpret and predict the behavior of real human brains limited by the finite possibilites available while driving their cars. It's a physics issue, not a Turing test.,(reply>), @Steve O well that was actually a lot of the argument Jim Keller made here, that it's not about solving behavior, he said cars have calculable trajectories and so on with rates of change that are generally slow in computer timescale, for the most part you can't cut off or swerve into an autopilot car without it evading you, there's just almost no way you threaten it without it noticing in time.<br>with that said however some behavior will no doubt be included such as the car calculating how likely it is to get cut off or for another car to do a lane change based on previous experiences, this is mostly just a side effect of the huge amount of data being used to improve autopilot as opposed to a targeted effort at understanding other drivers.<br>figuring out other people is just not a factor for good driving, a highly autistic person can drive perfectly fine and so on, human psychology just isn't important here, it's not a key issue but just the icing on the cake to help avoid their faults.,(reply>), @Jeremiah John The funny thing is as that you're right about me not comprehending you comment. I actually gave you too much credit. I didn't realize that you completely removed behavior from the equation...that's just naive honestly. You're either not a driver, or you haven't completely thought this through. It only takes one mistake and your dead out there. If the car can't predict or identify strange behavior, then thats really putting yourself at risk. Sure the computer can respond and calculate it's response in time to avoid most accidents, but the itself might not be able to do so. That's why defensive driving and predicting behavior needs to be part of the equation.,(reply>), @Steve O no, you need to work on your reading comprehension, you said "it just needs to replace a brain driving a car, and interpret and predict the behavior of real human brains"<br>that's not what it has to do, it doesn't have to figure out human drivers or predict what they'll do, the point was a normal car can physically only do a couple of things at a limited speed and that's what you have to work around, doesn't matter if the car is driven by a human or anything else, it can accelerate at almost 1 g, brake at a little more than that, or swerve to one side or the other, that's why he said stuff like "calculate the ballistic trajectory" and not "calculate human behavior".<br>it's rather laughable that Jim keller goes out of his way to clarify it's not about human psychology "the car doesn't have theories about why it gets cut off" you don't get it and then when I correct you you still pretend you got it right.,(reply>), @Jeremiah John lol you just restated my comment while also saying my original comment  missed the plot. Good for you,(reply>), I think you're missing the plot there.<br>it's not about predicting every possible human behavior lol, while thats a finite number it's certainly not a workable number.<br>the point is it doesn't have to get into a person's head and figure out what he's thinking, it can just look at the car and in a physics standpoint calculate what's reasonably safe.