Sure there is. Tesla released FSD without any regulatory oversight, and continues to do so. Reporting crashes is not regulatory oversight on the calculation of risk. It's a way to determine after the fact if the company allowed too much risk on the road to decide if future oversight is needed.
What you described in here is how they MANAGE risk, not how they evaluated when the system had sufficently low risk to be released to public roads with public drivers. Was their internal threshold 1 fatality in 1000 miles or 10M miles? How did their testing acquire data to prove this before release?
Except Speed limits and rolling through stops signs in Tesla's case, which they purposefully allowed.
Again, your whole description talked about what it does. What safety focused regulators care about is does it actually work? The hard numbers, the statistics. The things we don't get to see, and just like you said, we have zero idea if they make any difference.
With zero proof these improvements came because of data collected from public FSD users in the real world. Of course Tesla is developing FSD and making it better. But what percentage of those improvements were based on data taken from risking the uninformed public?
You mean we MIGHT get these cars. And they MIGHT come from Tesla. But they might also come from a company that never tested on the public road. We absolutely do not have them now, and the current cars are higher risk than ones without the technology.
The FAA is "slowing down" all sorts of development in aviation. The FDA slows down drugs all the time. Are you in support of getting rid of this and just letting companies do what they want with no oversight? What if Tesla suddenly says they are at L4, no driver is needed in the car. Are you OK with them just dropping 1000 of those cars on the road in your city without even telling you, or do maybe you hope there is actually someone, somewhere "slowing them down" to make sure they are actually ready before one runs over your kid on their way home from school?
