Up to a certain point society is run by actuaries. Finding someone at your insurance company who both understands the problem with excess errors and appreciates how easily enumerable they are would be an interesting "whistleblowing" target.

But the actuaries too are constrained by the same societal constructs. Let's say you work for a large car company and invent a self driving system that is 10x safer than the average human driver, and the cost is minimal. This system would likely save 36,000 lives annually in the US. The actuary will calculate that with human drivers, the accident liability for your car company is $0, but then with the self driving system, the liability is potentially in the billions, and it doesn't make sense to include this system in your vehicles. You can argue that since the error rate is 10x safer than the average human driver, that clearly this is an acceptable safety level. But your argument will fall on deaf ears because there is no such legal concept of an acceptable level of death. You could also say, well then the company can buy insurance. The cost will be minimal since there will only be 10% the rate of accidents as a normal car. The societal calculation for liability in a death is based mainly on:

1. How much money does the responsible party have

2. How much media attention and outrage does it generate

And since now instead of a single human driver, the liability will rest on a massive corporation, and the media attention will be massive vs nonexistent for a normal human crash, the liability will be massive. The accident rate may be 10x less, but the cost per death may be 1000x of a normal human driver crash.