[xxgreg]

"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."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot

[cjhopman]

Who cares what the definition is? How people interpret it is what matters. And people interpret the word to imply that the software is better than it is.

IIHS did a survey of 2000 people and a driver assistance system named "Autopilot" received the most responses that overestimated the system's capabilities. For example, "Nearly half — 48% — thought it would be safe to take hands off the steering wheel when using the system." In general, about 50% more people overestimated the capabilities of Autopilot compared to the names used by industry leaders (ex. SuperCruise, ProPilot Assist). Other things users were more likely to think they could do with "AutoPilot" included texting and watching a video.

See https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/new-studies-highlight-drive...

[bananabreakfast]

"Who cares what the definition is?"

Are you serious?? Literally everyone.

Definitions are what things mean. People incorrectly interpreting a word is their own fault and are in need of education.

Also, that's a terrible study to highlight. It is totally safe to take your hands off the steering wheel as long as you are ready to react.

[spookthesunset]

> People incorrectly interpreting a word is their own fault and are in need of education.

Do you honestly think Tesla called it "auto pilot" with your pedantic, "technically correct" definition in mind? Or do you think they intentionally called it "auto pilot" to invoke a sense of "hey, this thing can drive itself!". I mean, in some of their marketing they even have a whimsical blurb about how "the driver is only present to make the lawyers happy".

Let's be honest here. Product naming is marketing designed to invoke certain emotions. Calling it "auto pilot" instead of "driver assist" or whatever most other manufacturers call it was very intentionally done.

[FireBeyond]

> I mean, in some of their marketing they even have a whimsical blurb about how "the driver is only present to make the lawyers happy".

Exactly. You can read one piece of copy about Summon, that says "Have your finger on this button. Maintain visual contact and pay attention with vehicle at all times", and on the same page. "Have your car come to you while you are distracted by a fussing child".

It's all very nudge nudge wink wink.

[matz1]

Well yeah, they have to do that to for marketing. Its smart thing to do. I would do the same.

[toast0]

English is a consensus based language, not a language ruled by any official.

Words mean what people think they mean. Definitions are what the author of the dictionary thinks people think they mean.

Unless you're going to spend the time and money and effort educating people on what a word might have once meant and what you would like it to mean again, you're kind of stuck with it. Tesla has absolutely chosen AutoPilot as their name because they know some people will think it has more capability than it does because some people don't know most plane's autopilot is fairly dumb.

[Angostura]

> People incorrectly interpreting a word is their own fault and are in need of education.

You misused "Literally".

[missosoup]

When autopilot fails, the PIC has minutes to take controls and avert whatever bad thing might happen. When Tesla 'autopilot' fails the driver might have less than a second to take controls and avoid collision.

This fundamental mis-branding is why various regulators across the globe are cracking down on Tesla marketing.

[nopzor]

sorry, when autopilot fails, or when atc calls, or when tcas alarms, or when any one of many other possible “complications” arise,the pilot does not have “minutes” to react.

autopilot in aviation requires the pilot to be attentive, and maintain situational awareness.

it’s not autonomous flying.

[missosoup]

You don't understand.

When autopilot gives up in a plane, the PIC will respond in seconds. But anything dangerous is typically minutes or at least tens of seconds away from happening at that moment, if at all.

When tesla 'autopilot' gives up in a car, the driver may have less than a second before a collision. Or worse, as we've seen with the 'tesla tries to drive into a barrier' cases, the 'autopilot' might not give up at all and just straight up try to murder you with the only safety remaining being your own attention to the situation.

The fundamental problem with <99.99% reliable autonomous driving is that the driver's attention is guaranteed to stray due to lack of stimulation, and their reaction time will be at ~3s whereas the impeding crash might be only 0.3s away. In that regard, it's much better to just be manually driving and have your attention on the road.

And the consumer flip side of this is, what the fuck is the point of a self driving car if it requires you to fully pay attention and be ready to intervene at any given moment on such short notice? Waymo observed that their test drivers get bored and tired really quickly when operating like that, due to the simultaneous lack of stimulation but need to be able to take over on short notice. The answer is that SAE level 2 autonomy shouldn't be labelled as self driving because it isn't.

Tesla 'autopilot' is an over-marketed lane-keeping cruise control system which has virtually no chance of ever becoming SAE level 3. Tesla marketing has mislead a significant percentage of owners that they're in fact buying a level 3 system, which is why various regulators across the world are cracking down on Tesla now.

Disclosure: I own Tesla stock.

[vardump]

> Tesla 'autopilot' is an over-marketed lane-keeping cruise control system which has virtually no chance of ever becoming SAE level 3.

That's a very strong claim. Can you provide any evidence?

I own neither Tesla stock or car.

[ceejayoz]

Car crashes tend to happen in a matter of a couple seconds at most.

This is uncommon in planes.

TCAS, for example: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/64847/how-much-...

> Traffic advisories are provided 35-48 seconds out and a Resolution will be provided 20-30 seconds out.

It's exceedingly rare you have 20-30 seconds warning of an impending car crash.

[aschobel]

If you disengage with flying or driving the consequences can be catastrophic in seconds.

Fewer things to hit in the sky but you can never be complacent.

Imagine playing an iPhone game while PIC and accidentally flying into the clouds? The CFIT stats are terrifying.

[missosoup]

Nonsense. What you're saying is true for smaller planes and 'manual' planes, but planes that have autopilot are by standards and by design required to warn the PIC of any issues with enough time to reasonably respond.

There is almost never a situation where a plane on autopilot can face catastrophe in <20 seconds.

[bumby]

Agreeing with you and just adding support by pointing out that’s precisely why autopilot isn’t used during takeoffs and landings...because seconds do matter in those scenarios

[tristanb]

Plenty - an older plane and a midair collision. Bird strike. etc

[ceejayoz]

It's extremely uncommon for a bird strike to down a plane. They cause one fatal accident every billion flight hours.

Midair collisions are why we have ADS-B (even in my dad's little four-seater prop plane) and TCAS. The are also exceedingly uncommon.

People driving into a ditch, pedestrian, barrier, or oncoming traffic is commonplace.

[blackflame7000]

737 Max says you're wrong. Autopilot can fail in a hurry no matter what the vehicle.

[ceejayoz]

The 737 MAX crashes involved several minutes between the first indications of trouble and the crashes.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-lion-air-cras...

> Lemme described "a deadly game of tag" in which the plane pointed down, the pilots countered by manually aiming the nose higher, only for the sequence to repeat about five seconds later. That happened 26 times during the 11-minute flight...

[blackflame7000]

No bud, they had only seconds once MCAS took action during the ethiopian accident. Even if you kill power to the auto trim on the horizontal stabilizer in time, you are still nose down at low altitude and have to manually crank a wheel to undo the situation since you killed the power. You're screwed well before the crash.

[ceejayoz]

Bullshit.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/what-passengers-expe...

8:39:55 a.m.: In a clear sign that something is amiss, the autopilot turns itself off.

8:40:00 a.m.: The MCAS activates.

8:43:04 a.m.: For minutes now, the captain has been using brute physical force to pull the control yoke back in order to keep the plane’s nose from sinking.

8:43:20 a.m.: The demon awakened by the restoration of electric trim reappears. MCAS kicks back in, pushing nose steeply down.

8:43:45 a.m.: Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 impacts a farm field at nearly 700 miles per hour

That's more than three minutes during which properly disabling MCAS would've been successful and saved the aircraft.

[blackflame7000]

No, the incident happened at 8:40 and by 8:43 they couldn't pull the nose up because of the horizontal trim being pushed down. That is a very short amount of time to diagnose something completely unexpected. No matter what they did after 8:43 it was too late. You are aware what trim is right? You can't just fix that by pulling on the elevators if the entire rear airfoil is directed downward.

[bananabreakfast]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. This is another great misunderstanding of how any autopilot works or what it means.

[ceejayoz]

There's the "a pilot would know this, and have been heavily trained in its limitations and usage" definition, and there's the layperson understanding of things.

People think autopilots do a lot more than they actually do, which is part of the problem with Tesla's naming. They probably should've called it "assisted cruise" or "driver assist" or something, but that's less sexy on the marketing side.

It doesn't help that their marketing pages for Autopilot have done a clever job of blurring the line between what's currently implemented and what's aspirational. https://www.tesla.com/autopilot has a giant header titled "Full Self-Driving Capability". You have to read more closely to see the big caveats.

[mnd999]

Autopilots on aircraft do a lot, including automatic landing where necessary (fog etc.). What they don’t do, is control the plane on the ground. There is no autopilot on the taxiway and that is what Tesla’s are trying to do.

[Gwypaas]

No point comparing aircraft taxing to cars. The taxiway is a very well defined environment with the tower controlling all movements.

The only reason it isn't automated is because there's no monetary gain in doing so, the people you are paying is still sitting around for the same amount of time.

[FireBeyond]

And the worst taxiways are still better maintained|lit|painted than even most of the best roads.

[stefan_]

Autopilots in aircraft, marine craft or spacecraft have very well understood failure modes. Tesla Autopilot fails dead, whatever doesn't fit into a neat neural network label box is straight up rammed blind.

[Blaz3kovski]

Wikipedia for word definitions... really?

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/autopilo...

"a device that keeps aircraft, spacecraft, and ships moving in a particular direction without human involvement"

Either way, I think the wording causes people to trust it too much.