Sure I would. They’re not absurd, and they have nothing to do with anything you can see when you use FSD.
FSD is an impressive piece of technology and it’s almost like magic when you watch it drive. But the critical bottleneck to autonomy (removing the driver from the car) is about the “march of the nines” failure rate - not how well the car drives in any single trip.
That’s right - it’s about sample size. We tend to talk about how bad humans are at driving, but they’re actually really amazing at it. Nationally, the rate of accidents is about one per 700,000 miles (there’s obviously lots of different estimates, but that’s the one I’ve seen most often).
That’s so small a failure rate that you can’t assess whether an AI driver is coming close to that level through your own personal observations of a single car, except over several years. You’ll only drive about 10-12K miles in a given year. In that year, you’d never be able to know whether your car’s AI driver had a failure rate of 1:700K (comparable to a typical human) or 1:70K (10x more dangerous than a typical human). Because the human failure rate is so incredibly low, a car can have a failure rate that’s still an order of magnitude higher and still be unlikely to show up in the sample size of a single user, even over a year or two.
So it’s foolhardy to think you can learn whether FSD is close to “true” autonomy (for any commercially viable definition of “true”) just by watching the system drive for a few weeks or months or even a year or two. You won’t get a large enough sample. Even if it never disengages over that year or two, that’s not enough for you to know that it’s close to human safety; even if it does disengage once during that time frame, it might be a fluke.
You can’t learn whether FSD is close to self-driving by experiencing FSD. That’s just falling into the trap of thinking that AI’s have the same kind of correlation between quality and error rates that humans exhibit.