https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot
> Autopilots do not replace human operators, but instead they assist them in controlling the vehicle.
Names don't really mean anything, it could have been named anything. If people think it's 99% reliable and it's convenient, they will use it.
"The person in the driver's seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself"
They are not saying "use with caution, autopilot is an assistance feature", they are saying "The car is driving itself".
I have a car with Mobileeye. Mobileye recently demonstrated fsd in Jerusalem. Fortunately, like everyone else who can read, I know that system is not the same system that I have installed on my car.
Tesla’s wording really isn’t that different here.
Several interesting things are here: 1. Construction zones -- ProPilot should not be used there. It isn't realiable when lines are incorrect. 2. The wheel is moved automatically to a large degree. In the video it appears to be a larger movement than the system actually supports. 3. This commercial implies that it is actually a solution for inexperienced drivers, but it definitely is not.
Less than 10 seconds in it's demonstrating functionality that Autopilot does not have - turning from one road onto another, stopping at intersections, etc.
https://web.archive.org/web/20161213042716/https://www.tesla...
> Less than 10 seconds in it's demonstrating functionality that Autopilot does not have
It's on a page called "Autopilot", as the hero video. It's not very clear that this is functionality that Autopilot does not have, and it helps add to the confusion about what Autopilot is and what it is not, something seem keen to take advantage of.
They have had 4 years to possibly push that video down the page, perhaps add a title or a disclaimer saying that this is not Autopilot, perhaps clear up the confusion. Whether it's intentionally like this, or just plain old incompetence, either way it's not a great look for Tesla.
You're conflating FSD with Autopilot.
Names absolutely have meaning. Why do you think Tesla named it “auto pilot” and not something else?
Plane pilots have to pay very little attention with autopilot on compared to Tesla drivers with Autopilot on.
Autopilot in VNAV/LNAV modes does not do this, it follows a programmed flight path.
TCAS is the anti-collision system, but it's a secondary system that only gives information to the pilot. It's up to the pilot to make inputs to avoid a collision.
Pilots are the primary anti-collision system - by using their eyeballs to look for other aircraft when flying under visual flight rules (VFR) and also following clearances/information from controllers when flying under instrument flight rules (IFR).
> Plane pilots have to pay very little attention with autopilot on compared to Tesla drivers with Autopilot on.
This is not correct at all.
The real autopilot in planes is called Auto Flight System and is very recent and needs to be monitored closely. It can lift off, fly and land on it's own, but basically only in good weather condition.
This is so, so wrong. Names explicitly set people's expectations.
From what I've seen, the general public has an inaccurate perspective on airplane autopilot systems. Loads of people think pilots simply push a button then sit back and relax as the plane automatically taxis, takes off, flies then lands itself.
In choosing to name their technology after another technology which the general public has misconceptions about, Tesla chose to inherit those misconceptions.
Edit: I'm surprised there is any incredulity here, I've been hearing people say "planes basically fly themselves" and "all it takes to be a pilot is pushing a button" for years. Most often this misconception is surfaced in casual conversation, but here is one example of the misconception getting published: 'A computerized brain known as the autopilot can fly a 787 jet unaided, but irrationally we place human pilots in the cockpit to babysit the autopilot "just in case."' - https://www.wired.com/2012/12/ff-robots-will-take-our-jobs/
Edit 2: Re: Autoland
Modern airliners have autoland, but always take off under human control. Autonomous takeoff is not used by any airliner.
Anyway, to your point, a modern airline's autopilot system allows pilots to take their hands off the controls. Tesla's manual says that is forbidden: "Warning: Autosteer is a hands-on feature. You must keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times." (page 106: https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/model_x_owners_man...)
So no matter which way you slice it, Tesla has chosen misleading terminology.
Where? How? That's not a scientific statement.
> Loads of people think pilots simply push a button then sit back and relax as the plane automatically taxis, takes off, flies then lands itself.
Who thinks that? That seems like a hyperbole and you can't possibly know.
> Tesla chose to inherit those misconceptions.
Assuming all those above assumptions are true and assuming Tesla reached those same conclusions as the people that didn't know how airplanes work.
Just loads of speculating and attempted mind-reading...
> Autopilot -> Automatic Pilot
Autopilot is one word and has a specific definition in avionics. It keeps the altitude and heading.
If you rip the word apart and magically transform Auto to Automatic you have Automatic and Pilot, but there is no such thing as an automatic pilots, just pilots, that's why autopilot is one word.
Under that same logic automobiles should be automatic mobility devices that self-drive already.
You can't change the definition of a word to meet your argument. You also can't speculate that people probably might think the word may mean this.
Autopilot !== automatic pilot. That's not a thing.
Autopilot -> Automatic Pilot. Automatic: working by itself with little or no direct human control. Pilot: one qualified to control a vehicle. I'd argue if autopilot requires intervention it is hardly automatic and definitely not qualified to operate a vehicle.
Further, consider other automatic devices in most cars, such as the automatic transmission. How do people expect to intervene with a gear shift during normal operation? Never.
It's like how 'act' means one thing, 'god' means one thing, but in the right context 'act of god' doesn't mean a supernatural being intervened.
Demanding a rigorous scientific study on human understanding of a word is simply not necessary when there are multiple recorded videos of people asleep at the wheel with a fucking banana on a string dangling from the steering wheel to fool the system.
People trying to fool the system is not Tesla's fault and indicates they are aware of the warnings alerting them they need to pay attention.
If people are dangling bananas they're doing it for attention and you guys are feeding it and blaming the manufacturer.
Changing the product name will not change anything.
Humans will always be a piece of shit sometimes.
Is this just being pedantic? If you say the autopilot doesn't land the plane, maybe a pilot would agree for all I know, but "autoland" seems to be a thing, right? When I read about "autoland" systems, I also notice they use the phrase "autopilot-controlled landing". I'm not convinced this is about inaccuracy so much as imprecision.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot#/media/File%3AFMS_...
In fact, it's more of "hold this heading and glideslope" than anything else - a smarter cruise control, if you will.
Sounds like Autopilot on Teslas is the same thing as an autopilot on an airplane, so why is everyone angry at them again? Somehow they're responsible for the majority of the public having misconceptions about both?
Asiana Airlines Flight 214 is irrelevant because (1) it was not correctly configured for approach, (2) the autopilot was switched off over a minute before the crash, and (3) the autopilot did not fail.
The parent of this thread was an argument over whether a aircraft flying on autopilot needs the pilot monitoring it to have subsecond reaction times to avoid a crash. It doesn't.