> What would convince you? Data from 60k cars isn't sufficient?
It would be if the data showed they were safer than human drivers, and was independently obtained. I have yet to see any data that suggests this or anything close to this.
Uh... no? I suspect you're referring to the Goodall preprint that did the rounds a few days ago. What it purported[1] to show was not that AP was less safe than regular driver, but that it was less safe than Tesla claimed. It still showed that it was (moderately) safer than Teslas being driven without active safety measures, which are themselves about 3x safer than average vehicle.
You seem to have taken the opposite conclusion, which is exactly what the feeding frenzy over the paper wanted.
[1] The methodology is hugely suspect: you can't take an incomplete data set and then just "correct" it by inventing axes that you pull in from other incomplete data sets that weren't studied or measured in the original! That's rank P-Hacking. It seems reasonable, but I guarantee that a talented statistician can push any such data set 2x in either direction with that kind of trick.
It would be if the data showed they were safer than human drivers, and was independently obtained. I have yet to see any data that suggests this or anything close to this.