This is still a biased argument. Once it scales up, you'll be able to google "top causes of self-driving car accidents." They will have their own flaws and quirks that we don't anticipate yet, and we don't have any good reason to believe the death toll will be inherently less with computers than with people. Plus, there will be exogenous causes of accidents that are far down on the list for humans, but for AI it might represent a much higher risk and this changes the nature of that list entirely.

There just aren't reliable statistics on what the safety of this tech will be at this point in time. All we have is extrapolations with lots of bias and little independent review. Maybe it will eventually be worth it, but that experiment will come with a great many human deaths and we can't simply brush aside the ethics of that. I personally think it won't prove to be safer than humans for many decades. This is far more of a complex problem than a lot of the developers think, and I believe there's a case of engineering arrogance going on here as well.

On the surface it seems like we have something very close to a viable product, but the remaining little details and issues are important and represent an enormous amount of work, where we are going to see diminishing returns and enormous difficulty making a system that is flexible and robust enough to handle all the required situations more reliably than the average driver on its own for thousands of miles, scaled up to millions of units around the world. They will be good enough for niche applications, but the dream of a general self-driving infrastructure is pretty far off.