I think you got down-voted because you misrepresented what Telsa is actually doing, which is a difficult arbitrage between:
- known preventable deaths from, say, not staying in the lane aggressively enough;
- possible surprises and subsequent deaths.
There is an ethical conundrum (that is quite different from the trolley problem) between a known fix and an unknown possibility. If both are clearly establish and you dismiss the former to have a simplistic take, yes, you would be down-voted because you are making the debate less informed.
Without falling to solutionism, in that case, the remaining issue seems rather isolated to a handful of areas that look like lanes and could be either painted properly, or that Telsa cars could train to avoid. The later fix would have to be sent rapidly and could have surprising consequences -- although it seems decreasingly likely.
That learning pattern (resolving unintended surprises as they happen decreasingly often) is common in software. This explains why this community prefers (to an extend) Telsa to other manufacturers. Others have preferred the surprise-free and PR-friendly option of not saving the dozens of thousand of lives dying on the road at the moment. There are ethical backgrounds to non-interventionism.
As the victim of car violence, I happen to think that their position is unethical. I’m actually at what is considered an extreme position, of being in favour of Telsa (and Waymo) taking more risk than necessary and temporarily increasing the number of accidents on the road because they have a far better track record of learning from those accidents (and the subsequent press coverage) and that would lower the overall number of deaths faster.
As it happens, they don’t need to: even with less than half of accidents from their counterparts, they still get spectacular learning rate.