> You also learn as a pro tip to let the car push its limits and let it do what it wants to do like doing something dangerous then realizing that it would correct itself after your "comfortable" zone.
That's literally "trusting it".
As a human, you are attempting to learn the situations under which the car operates safely. You could be very conservative and say "it never works". The big problem is that the kinds of errors that occur in these systems are very different from the kinds of errors that humans expect. Even designers of autonomous systems can be surprised by emergent behavior. You say you can quickly learn the good and bad sides of it, however, that's not true. How much reliability do we expect from a system that, when it fails, leads to sever injury or death? ASIL-D is something like one failure in 10^9 hours [1]. That's 100,000 years.
You do not have that much experience with your Tesla, sorry. In principle, you might drive every waking hour for 10 years, never witness an accident, and you still not have an argument that passes even the most basic scrutiny for safety for critical systems. It could make a fatal mistake in the 11th year and that would not be a big surprise.
No one has that much experience with the ASIL-D components of any car. That's why I we must rely on regulation and standardization to help keep us safe. Safety isn't just "well I tried it a bunch under these conditions and didn't get hurt". And that's why what Tesla's strategy is reckless.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_Safety_Integrity_Le...