Words, in general, mean things. "Autopilot" is a word that means things. It does not, most notably mean "at its most generously-described best, full and complete attention the entire time lest it send you into the side of a semi at highway speeds or direct you into a concrete barrier".
Tesla does not need any heroes with capes attempting to minimize their literally-not-figuratively-dangerous marketing. They'll do fine without it. I promise.
Instead of trying to tear Tesla down for something you are doing yourself, why not look for the positive aspects of what is happening? The technology is getting hugely better over time, so whatever you have been reading about it is probably outdated.
"It does not mean "full and complete attention the entire time lest it send you into the side of a semi at highway speeds" or "direct you into a concrete barrier"."
Presumably "Autopilot" is a reference to aircraft, and they do not fly milliseconds away from concrete. (at least not the vast majority of the time)
So if you want to be literal, then the word autopilot shouldn't give you confidence you aren't going to hit things and is not false advertising. The issue is the implicit claim that you can let an autopilot drive your car safely. But it's a fine autopilot!
I'm not endorsing Tesla or their tech, and I stand behind what I wrote as demonstrating the alternative to taking "Autopilot" as a metaphor - taking it literally. If you don't like either one, what's your justification for interpreting Autopilot in a particular way?
I think the important questions are how people actually interpret it, and (if we want to judge Tesla) how they could reasonably have expected people to interpret it.
I don't know exactly how they presented it to the public, but it definitely doesn't seem like a name you'd choose if you were keen to avoid having people overestimate its capabilities.
I think it's insane to identify the problem as being the name, rather than that using the technology inherently leads to a dangerous sense of confidence (assuming it doesn't in fact scare you out of continuing). As many people have said, the fundamental issue is the tiny amount of time between appropriate operation and disaster, and the better it works at first, the less prepared a person is when it goes haywire. This is the same no matter what you call it.
Yeah I agree that that is a bigger problem. (And not just confidence, but concentration -- even if you know you can't trust the car, it must be a lot harder to stay properly alert when you have nothing to do 99% of the time.) I didn't mean to agree with anyone who thinks that the name is the problem, but I think it could plausibly make things worse by contributing to unrealistic expectations and gung-ho attitudes. It could also give us a clue about Tesla's attitude, and how they are balancing hyping the feature vs. trying to prevent driver complacency.
It is completely dishonest to suggest they called it auto pilot for any reason other than to invoke the image of the car doing every thing for you. It’s funny how people love to slam other companies marketing as being dishonest “brainwashing” but give Tesla a free pass.
Give me a break dude. Tesla’s marketing department knew exactly what they were doing when they called it “auto pilot”. And it wasn’t because somebody there looked up the “literal meaning” of “auto pilot” and rolled with that (though it certainly provides an easy out for their more... dedicated... fans to help defend the company)
I'm not a fan, owner, or shareholder of Tesla. I've repeatedly stated on HN that I think PHEVs are the future and not full electric cars.
What you think of Tesla has nothing to do with whether 2+2=4. If you don't want to discuss the same thing as another person, then go do something else.
> An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of an aircraft, marine craft or spacecraft without constant manual control by a human operator being required. Autopilots do not replace human operators, but instead they assist them in controlling the vehicle.
That's the definition the feature name was based off of. It doesn't matter what you feel. It's a word, get over it.
Edit: to those of you using "hours" as a value. Autopilot on a Tesla can drive for hours on an interstate with no intervention needed, same as a plane on a flight path. Neither system can replace humans though. It makes sense autopilot in planes is further along, it's been around longer and being in the sky is easier than driving on roads, and it's more regulated for good reasons.
Musk, you and I know what people think auto-pilot on a car does. I really wish these were not on the road.
Pilots engage autopilot and then let the computer do the work. They are not sitting ready at the stick to jump in at the slightest issue in case the system thinks the sun is another plane or some other odd error. My understanding is that the plane flies on it's own for hours. Is that incorrect? Yes for special phases humans can take charge (eg taxiing), but it's clearly demarcated.
While I am not a pilot I have been on the flight deck of a 747. Can confirm that the pilots do not touch anything for hours at a time. IIRC they mostly checked the weather, fuel, engines, altitude and heading infrequently. The aircraft flew itself all the way to the Heathrow pattern. I asked what would happen if they did nothing. They claimed the aircraft would circle above the airport until it ran out of fuel.
The plane flies on its own for hours or at least 747s do.
There are no mountains at the cruise altitude of a 747. TCAS will provide a warning 30 seconds before collision and the Airbus A380 has an autopilot with integrated TCAS avoidance. So it will hit neither mountains (too low) nor other aircraft (automatic avoidance).
I'm well aware that there are no mountains at 40k feet.
Well airplane autopilots can avoid obstacles... about time after 100 years of development. (The first aircraft autopilot was developed by Sperry Corporation in 1912. The autopilot connected a gyroscopic heading indicator and attitude indicator to hydraulically operated elevators and rudder.)
Technically speaking yes. But the obstacle does need to have a working TCAS transponder! An A380 won't be able to detect or avoid a military jet for example because they tend to not be too forthcoming about their locations. Some birds, most notably the Ruppell's griffon vulture, can fly into airliner airspace topping out at 37,000 ft.
However, by general agreement, only aircraft on IFR flight plans are allowed into the airliner zone and therefore pretty much all the obstacles (not military jets or birds) do have TCAS or ATC clearance.
Lastly while some aircraft do have TCAS integrated autopilot it is uncommon. Some airlines are still operating aircraft 40 years old.
