Occam's Razor is a principle for comparing explanations, not for making predictions.

> It's not true to argue that it not being the same thing is (0) not at least a somewhat reasonable proxy for the evidence you want to see, (1) evidence that it doesn't or can't exist, (2) evidence for the opposite case (you seem to be claiming that the fact that it's supervised means that it must be), and in particular (3) evidence for suppression of contrary evidence, as some of your more conspiracy-leaning comments seem to imply.

Actually, (0) is true. Numbers from supervised FSD are not a reasonable proxy for unsupervised FSD, especially if accidents may be occurring immediately after FSD disengages.

(1) is also true, because if the evidence did exist, then Tesla would have already have publicized it.

(2) is also true, because if Tesla thought they could employ unsupervised cars like Waymo, then they would have already have done that.

As for (3), if Tesla had a reputation for transparency & honesty, then they could have provided additional data on accidents to show that accidents are not occurring right after FSD disengages at significant rates.