[Ryudas]

I find this argument so often. Autopilot has never been a term for autonomous, just as its used in aviation. Just because people don't know the proper term or have an erroneous idea of the term, doesn't mean tesla has to have the burden of people misinterpreting what it says.

[keepper]

Uh, yes, they do.

See, I'm not sure if you know this... but most people are not Pilots.. ( disclaimer, I'm not only a programmer, but also hold an A&P and avionics license, as well as a few engine ratings ).

It is ABSOLUTELY on a manufacturer to make sure their potentially life ending feature, is not named in a way that can confuse the target audience. You know. NON PILOT car drivers.

auto means "by itself, automatic"...

[dbasedweeb]

Arguing with Tesla/Musk fanatics now is like arguing with Facebook/Zuck fanatics was ten years ago, or saying that a Google was bad news in their “don’t be evil” days. You’re right, but only time and loads of evidence will convince some people that what they desperately want to believe isn’t true.

Of course “Autopilot” is intended to evoke the common meaning as a marketing tool, and not the nuanced, highly technical meaning understood by pilots. Understand though, that when someone argues against that point the pedantry is just a proxy for their fanaticism, and until the fanaticism dies, the excuses will be generated de novo. You’re bringing reason and logic to an emotional fight.

[Ryudas]

I would really prefer not being called a fanatic just because i believe that the term "autopilot" isn't a proxy for "autonomous". I've always seen that autonomous is a goal of tesla but they have always said their system is limited, and that it requires vigilance.

Forgive me but I've never seen any plane where, once in autopilot, the pilot/s are not checking and observing the conditions of the plane and making sure everything is alright.

[Ryudas]

And yet, I don't recall ever in any documentary or so, having seen the pilots get up and leave once the autopilot is on? They have humongous checklists to parse, do they not?

I want you to go on wikipedia(is that not mainstream enough) and search for the term Autopilot. Reads its ACTUAL definition and come back.please.

[seppel]

> Autopilot has never been a term for autonomous, just as its used in aviation.

Autopilots used in modern commercial airplanes are autonomous. You don't have to watch them, they will do their job. The airplane is either controlled by the pilots or the autopilot. There is a protocol to transfer the control between pilots and the autopilot, such that it is clear who is in charge of controlling the plane (there's even a protocol to transfer this between pilots).

The autopilot will signal when it is no longer able to control the plane (because of, e.g., technical faults in the sensors).

Yes, there are also autopilots in smaller airplanes which are more or less just a cruise control. But everything in between, where is it unclear who is doing what are where the limits of the capabilities are, have been scrapped because people died.

> doesn't mean tesla has to have the burden of people misinterpreting what it says.

Because Tesla is so pretty clear in stating what their autopilot is able to do and what not.

[danso]

Do you believe Tesla bears the burden of maintaining its own homepage? tesla.com/autopilot currently has "Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars" as its top headline and has had that for awhile now.

[Rychard]

Well, they do have the hardware, that isn't the issue.

The cars simply lack the software to enable a fully autonomous vehicle. The phrasing indicates that if/when the software becomes available, the car would be theoretically capable of driving itself.

It's just a typical misleading marketing blurb; nothing more.

[dragonwriter]

> Well, they do have the hardware

They don't actually know that they have hardware for full autonomy till they have a fully working hardware/software autonomy system; what they have is hardware that they hope will support full autonomy, and a willingness to present hopes as facts for marketing purposes.

[danso]

Yes, it is the issue because no one has achieved full self-driving yet so Tesla simply has no idea what hardware may be required to achieve that level of functionality in real-world situations.

But that wasn't the line of argument I was making. The parent commenter said this about people misunderstanding the term "autopilot"

> Just because people don't know the proper term or have an erroneous idea of the term, doesn't mean tesla has to have the burden of people misinterpreting what it says.

Seems like people might be mistaken because the phrase "Full Self-Driving" is literally the first thing on the official Tesla Autopilot page.

[stordoff]

In a sense though, without the software the hardware isn't self-driving, at least enough to be misleading. If you saw "Full Voice-Recognition Hardware on All Computers", you would expect it to actually recognise voices, not just come with a microphone.

[gamblor956]

The problem is that Tesla creates the misinterpretation by explicitly stating that Autopilot is a self-driving system rather than a driver-assist system.

It's a fatal choice of words.

[greglindahl]

That's not what the Tesla system says when you turn it on, every time.

[rohit2412]

But check out my Full Self Driving AP2 hardware, driving coast to coast! You can even ask your car to earn you money on Tesla Network! Tesla Autopilot twice as safe as humans in 2016! Sentient AI will kill humans!

That is exactly what the CEO says

[greglindahl]

So which one does the driver believe, the marketing future or the daily warning? Data, please, not your guess.

[Retra]

You seem to understand the difference. Everyone in this thread seems to understand the difference. So why should anybody believe a failure to understand the term is a problem?

[decker]

I'm guessing you must not be a lawyer.