No, the risk landscape is not binary. The choice is not, take no risk or take any risk. There are literally factors of millions if not billions between the low

No, the risk landscape is not binary. The choice is not, take no risk or take any risk. There are literally factors of millions if not billions between the low risk and high risk activities. The people arguing that the status quo level of risk tolerance are too low almost always mischaracterize how wide the gap is or do not know how safe the “risky” activities they point to as evidence that risky activitys should and can be tolerated. Yes, you should weigh the pros and cons, but that requires actually quantifying them. For instance, you pointed to the 737 MAX in a different comment as evidence that corporations take risks with their customers all the time. First of all, they were roundly criticized for their laxness, so that is actually evidence that too many risks were taken and we should stricter. Second, the fatality rate of the 737 MAX right after the second crash (while it was defective) was on the order of 1 fatality per 100,000,000 miles which is still safer than driving. Third, the reason it is viewed so negatively is because that level of safety is around 1,000x worse than the average in commercial airliners. Arguing that we accept corporations taking risks because we accept the 737 MAX (we do not), so we should increase our risk tolerance to the level of the 737 MAX (everything except other airplanes is already more dangerous, so this would actually be decreasing risk tolerance) and generally accept greater levels of risk than the status quo (which has been rejected in the 737 MAX case as we find the increase in risk relative to the status quo unacceptable). The entire argument is literally completely wrong in every conceivable facet. To then dig into your other specific argument, the Tesla argument is that they are taking greater risks to develop faster. A pro and a con. However, by all objective measures, Tesla will not develop a self-driving system first. Their systems are thousands of times worse than their competitors such as Waymo and Cruise. Their approach is so far behind their competitors that there is little reason to believe that anything it is doing will be incorporated into working solutions. So, every single person their human experimentation program kills, of which there are at least 31 documented deaths (no thanks to Tesla who deliberately obscures reporting), is being killed for no reason. From a systems thinking perspective, there is exactly zero benefit and immense costs to supporting Tesla’s regressive development process relative to others who are both more safe and more effective.