This was definitely a poor name in retrospect, but I can see why they chose the name. The current functionality of autopilot is in fact pretty similar to aviation autopilots. Unfortunately most of the public thinks that an autopilot can fly a plane unassisted, so they naturally expect "Autopilot" to drive their car unassisted.
You don't think there's an implied difference between Autopilot vs a name like Driver Assist? Even Co-pilot would be be a better name as it implies an expectation that the driver is still ultimately responsible.
Names are important. Calling it "autopilot" implies that it does the driving for you, and people will take that at face value. It should be named in a way that accurately describes its abilities.
If it is actually just assistive, and isn't autopilot, then calling it such is incredibly dangerous. It'd be like calling homeopathic junk a "cancer medicine", which is illegal mind you.
That's what autopilot means to me, both look synonymous and their marketing also plays on that confusion. They could just call it "assisted driving" to be more honest.
I agree that Autopilot was the wrong choice of name, I'd say it's reckless bordering on seriously negligent.
The name was chosen on its marketing merits not based on its relation to the actual function it performs. That might be ok if you're designing a feature for the car stereo, not so for "Cruise Control v2.0"
Autopilot isn’t a very good name for a fancy driver assist system.
Most regular folk associate the term autopilot with “the plane flies itself, the pilot is just there to guide it on landing”. We’ve had decades of this use of the term and got used to the idea that “autopilot” means the vehicle is self guided and the operator can take a nap, have a meal, etc.
"Autopilot" is not just a bad name -- it's outright misleading.
reply