Name your expectations up front, please.
It may be easy to casually update software and break builds, but when human lives are at risk a healthy dose of conservatism is appropriate.
But you're right -- it's probably unfair to expect a SV company to prioritize anything over profits (we saw that with Facebook, right?)
Tesla says their cars have drive past that spot 85000 times so far. So you may be asking for some testing that's better at uncovering problems than 85000 whitenoise test instantiations are. Or you may be asking to test, and test, and improve until the software meets the developers' intentions: If their intention is to improve safety by 40% (or 400%, or 40000%) then you may be saying they shouldn't release a version that's improved over the baseline by 20% (or 200%, or 2000%) because that still doesn't realise the design.
Seems a bit absolutist to me. You could equally well make the opposite absolutist argument that having inhouse software that's better than the current released is putting people's lives in danger by inaction/negligence/whatever. That fixing a bug or improving a feature confers a moral obligation to release immediately, lest people's life be put in danger which would be avoided by the new code.
At least they are responsive, seemingly open, and seemingly empathetic. They are obviously handling things in a business first manner as corporations will but it hardly feels as inhuman as people seem to be making it out to be.