How does the human consume the arbitrarily good camera feeds?

> That something magical is happening because the eyes are close topographically to the brain?

It sounds to me like you have to study what eyes actually are. It's not about proximity or magic, they are a part of your brain, and we're only beginning to understand their complexities. Eyes are not just sensory organs, so the analogy to cameras is way off. They are able to discern edges, motion, color, and shapes, as well as correct errors before your brain even is even aware.

In robotics, we only get this kind of information after the camera image has been sent through a perception pipeline, often incurring a round trip through some sort of AI and a GPU at this point.

> Sounds implausible.

Musk just spent billions of dollars and the better part of a decade trying to prove the conjecture that "cameras are sufficient", and now he's waving the white flag. So however implausible it sounds, it's now more implausible than ever that cameras alone are sufficient.

> your assertion is that a human with access to arbitrarily good camera feeds could not drive a car at level 5?

No. I live in snow country. Folks with vestibular issues are advised to pull over in snowstorms because sometimes the only indication that you have perpendicular velocity and are approaching a slide off the road or spin is that sense. My Subaru has on more than one occasion noticed a car before I did based on radar.

Vision only was a neat bet. But it will cost Tesla first to market status generally and especially in cities, where regulators should have fair scepticism about a company openly trying to do self driving on the cheap.