Honest question: If beta testing speeds up the transition to FSD by x months/years and causes y deaths during the intervening period but FSD ultimately reduces the number of road deaths by z per day. For what values of x, y and z is it an acceptable trade off?
Zeroism is often overly simplistic. y being non-zero might be hugely net-positive in the long run.
Even if FSD is mature and 1000x safer than human driving then there will still be deaths. Are you suggesting that if FSD is 1000x safer then it still shouldn't be allowed on the road because there is the possibility of deaths?
I'm not claiming that FSD should or shouldn't be allowed on the road right now. My point is that we shouldn't wait for the chances of death to be zero.
This is a solved problem with experimental design. Experiments are designed and reviewed by ethics boards, and participants are gathered after getting their informed consent and giving them just compensation for the risks involved.
"Testing of FSD solutions in the real world" can follow the same path in their experimental designs, but they don't, because executives and shareholders don't want to pay for expensive ethical experimentation. They'd rather move fast and break bodies.
Most modern life saving devices and treatments have gone through exactly this type of ethical experimentation. There's no reason Tesla's products couldn't, as well.
“Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.“