> Oddly enough from what I've seen when it snows I'd imagine a computer's ability to simulate a multi-car situation in snow _vastly_ outmatches your normal humans.

What's the basis for your imagining? Whenever I read some strong "computer > human" statement like that, I can't help but think it's substantially based on science fiction (which can make technology work fantastically well because it's not real, e.g. like Six Million Dollar Man vs actual prosthetic limbs).

Also, have you heard about the time I was driving on the highway in winter weather, and my adaptive cruise control would stop working every few dozen miles because I had to get out and scrape ice off the sensor?

I think you might have missed the implication that the humans are doing a terrible job, so a computer doesn't have to be very good to beat them in this situation.

> I think you might have missed the implication that the humans are doing a terrible job, so a computer doesn't have to be very good to beat them in this situation.

That doesn't really matter, because I was responding to the the sci-fi sentiment that "of course the computer must be better because computer." It doesn't matter if the humans are doing a poor job if the computer is still worse.

I don't think that was the sentiment at all.

Especially because the claim is only about snowy situations. Even in a reply about snow, someone that thinks computers are automatically better would normally just say that directly.

What if sensors are covered in snow?

Parktronics routinely get covered by snow/slush/ice when driving.

My car’s visual sensors (i.e. my eyes) are often blocked by snow and ice.

When that happens I hit a button to turn on the defroster that then gets rid of the snow and ice.

Could they use a similar system?

If only there were some sort of "wind shield" to protect the sensor clusters.

Can I patent that?

What do they do while it defrosts? Sit there?

And if the defroster fails, like many I've seen? Phone for help?

Sure! Humans get snowed in sometimes too.