[simondotau]

If the argument was "Tesla shouldn't use the Autopilot name because some people are grossly misinformed about aspects of the aviation industry" then I'd have some sympathy for it. I'd still consider it a poor argument, but at least it's one I could comprehend and respect.

[thfuran]

Not just some people but many people and not just some aspects of the aviation industry but precisely those with are being referenced.

[watwut]

No. Tesla should not use that term because of what that term means everywhere outside of aviation industry. Aviation industry is one small niche.

The term autopilot implies autonomous driving everywhere outside of that one small subgroup of people.

[jhgb]

"Everywhere outside of aviation industry"? I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but I can't avoid a strong feeling that you've just made that up. Where are all the different non-aviation autopilots in the real world we live in that "imply autonomous driving" when that term gets applied to cars? Are there bicycle autopilots? Crane autopilots? Bulldozer autopilots? All of them operating devices fully autonomously with no operator oversight? Because I can't for the life of me recall a real-world usage of the word "autopilot" that could give people the misconception you're alluding to. If there's a wide range of different real-world types of autopilots that almost all require no human attention except for airplane autopilots which do require it, all of them in such widespread use that they justify some people's notion that systems called "autopilots" are operator-free, then I must have completely missed that somehow. Please give me some examples of those different systems if they do exist.

[watwut]

Yes the word autopilot is used and understood by people autside of aviation to full autotonumous driving.

Just like spaceship is used space vessel able to travel through space. And teleport is used for moving from one place to another in blink of eye. They don't need to exist.

[jhgb]

> the word autopilot is used and understood by people autside of aviation to full autotonumous driving.

...is a completely different statement from...

> because of what that term means everywhere outside of aviation industry. Aviation industry is one small niche.

The former implies that the common "understanding" by people who know little of consequence about the field is actually a misconception, whereas the latter insinuates that there do exist separate, valid, non-aviation usages of that word (of which you haven't provided any) which would justify such expectations about Tesla's product.

> They don't need to exist.

Except autopilots actually exist and they partially automate the boring parts of operation of means of transportation such as airplanes and ships. To argue with a fictional notion of a fully autonomous system against an actually existing device is like saying that you don't care what words mean and that you can reuse established terms to describe whatever you want, even if they already mean something very different from what you want them to mean. This is just like for example the East-German reinvention of the word "Aktivist". You're basically peddling Newspeak by saying that autopilot doesn't mean what it actually means.

[simondotau]

> The term autopilot implies autonomous driving everywhere outside of that one small subgroup of people.

And with that you've disproven your own argument.

To the extent that "Autopilot" is used to refer to driving technology, it is as the brand name for Tesla's version of such. The name literally cannot be the causal factor as to why Tesla was supposedly wrong to pick that name, if it wasn't associated with autonomous driving prior to Tesla's use of it. Your argument is circular and thus invalid.