I think Atlas could see mainstream adoption without the high reliability that's expected from Autopilot. Atlas still needs to reliably not kill people, but this is seemingly much easier to do when you're not hurtling down the road at 70 miles per hour. Beyond that, it could be much less reliable than humans and still add tremendous value.
Human drivers crash once per day? Sorry, there is no comparison. The only reason you don't see FSD crashes is because FSD testers so far have been very attentive (they are better drivers than the general public because they are enthusiasts that bought a luxury car).
But if FSD was unsupervised it would be a killing machine.
I am sure if you counted for example Skoda Octavia crashes it'd be way more than once a day.
Let's talk about "adaptive cruise control" too - I am not aware of any company other than Tesla having any sort of working crash protection built into that feature. My old Ford Mondeo just makes a loud noise and brakes a little, but you're going to crash anyways, it's not going to move the steering wheel an inch.
Volvo cars with "lane assist" will consistently turn you into the ditch - because it greatly overcompensates when you get near the line, which can be deadly above 100 km/h. And it's pretty hard to turn off that feature while driving and it turns on automatically when you power on the car.
Why do people keep hating on the provably most safe car (Tesla Model S) instead of mentioning all the other cars with terrible unsafe assistants? Roads would be much safer place if everyone had a Tesla.
I've never crashed my car driving in downtown Seattle. But FSD cannot handle downtown Seattle or downtown Chicago from the videos seen on YouTube. The crashes would be at least one per day. It's even unacceptable for a system such as this to crash the car once per year when it's a $40,000+ purchase.