could be a well-meaning tech culture screw up; Most tech people know that airplane autopilots weren't end-to-end automated for the majority of their existence
most tech people also know how "better than human" sounds to the public and the average driver. This isn't well meaning tech culture, it's a PR statement that is misleading and formulated the way it is precisely because it is a sales pitch.
It's irresponsible and unethical. It should be called a 'driver assistant' and have a warning label in font size 100 that tells drivers to not treat it as autonomous and infallible.
As a reasonably self-aware dumb tech person, I would say that this defense would not fly with me any more than "any ____ should know that the product can't actually do that." There's a reason that such consumer protections are in place against claims like this, and especially with something like an auto-pilot, I think it's down-right irresponsible to allow marketing to dilute the reality of the performance. This isn't like GB vs GiB for storage, which is annoying but understandable, it's a tool that has very serious consequences if what is advertised doesn't match up with reality. Caveat Emptor only covers so much, and when you have non-stop marketing material about autonomous vehicles and auto-pilot being produced about your product (whether internally produced or produced by third parties), there is a responsibility to set out a clear expectation for the product.
There is a case that dates back to the early days of the auto industry.
tl;dr: Lady was driving a car and the wheel fell off due to a manufacturing defect. Auto makers said they weren't liable cause Caveat Emptor. Supreme court said a normal person has no way of knowing if the wheel assembly on a car is defective. Auto maker was held liable.
Defective or misleadingly advertised auto pilot? The above on steroids.
> Most tech people know that airplane autopilots weren't end-to-end automated for the majority of their existence
The Lockheed TriStar flight-control system flew a fully-automated chocks-to-chocks take-off, flight and landing in ... 1973 I think?
Anyway the comparison with aircraft autopilots is confusing. The pilots will usually couple the autopilot soon after take-off and from then it follows the commands of the Flight Management System through which the pilots interact; new waypoints, level changes etc.
Several test schemes are investigating uploading routings directly from ATC via datalink, with the pilots just having to press a button to accept.
There is also a proposal to permit TCAS to command the autopilot to prevent collisions, instead of providing advisory notice to the pilots.
most tech people also know how "better than human" sounds to the public and the average driver. This isn't well meaning tech culture, it's a PR statement that is misleading and formulated the way it is precisely because it is a sales pitch.
It's irresponsible and unethical. It should be called a 'driver assistant' and have a warning label in font size 100 that tells drivers to not treat it as autonomous and infallible.