A small misunderstanding - "legal reasons" are that it is the person in the driver's seat who is legally liable for damage done while the car was driving itself, not Tesla.
The important thing here is that for over half-a-decade, Tesla has been lying to its customers about its capabilities.
When in actuality, Tesla will reliably crash into pedestrians and stationary firetrucks. To the point where people at other companies are confident to make live-demos of this at electronic shows.
---------
Calling it "autopilot" or "fsd" isn't the problem. The problem is that Tesla actively lies about its capabilities to the public and its customers. It doesn't matter "how" they lie or exactly what weasel words they use. The issue is that they're liars.
We can tell them to change their name or change their marketing strategy. But as long as they're liars, they'll just find a new set of weasel words to continue their lies.
Does autopilot make sense? Aviation autopilot seems to be many orders of magnitude more reliable than Tesla's autopilot.
In fact, autopilot in aviation contexts is regularly used when human pilots are worse, such as landing at airports that regularly experience fog & low visibility conditions. As in, autopilot is the fallback for humans, not the other way around.
Surely autopilot is an easier problem to solve compared to self-driving cars? Air traffic is controlled, road traffic is chaotic. Aerial vehicles move through what's essentially empty space with pretty much no obstacles, cars must navigate imperfect always changing urban mazes full of people whose actions are unpredictable.
I’m not familiar with aviation and the only reason I’m aware that airplane autopilot is actually not a self-flying system is because of Tesla and their weasel excuses for their reckless marketing.
Tesla Marketing: 2016