I have addressed this elsewhere in this thread, so let me just copy and paste that comment.
>To be fair this is mostly a problem with the general public's understanding of the term autopilot and not with the actual systems that have used that name before. Aeronautical autopilots would probably only be classified as level 1 or maybe level 2 [autonomy] when that term was first coined and used to describe them. Even now I am not sure if we would classify the average autopilots you find on a commercial airliner as being fully at level 4.
I don't think Tesla's naming it autopilot should have any impact on any legal discussions. I am not sure the driver should be responsible for everything that happens to the car while autopilot is engaged. However I think it is a completely fair and reasonable expectation that a driver understands what autopilot is capable of doing before they engage it. I don't think Tesla (at least through their marketing, I have heard some questionable things about their salespeople) has been misleading about that in any way. I don't have a lot of faith in people handling a Tesla responsibly if the only thing they know about autopilot is that it is named autopilot.
>I don't think the issue here is Tesla misusing the word. The issue is that the common (non-pilot) understanding of the term is wrong
In fact, because it's well-known that there's a common misunderstanding of the term (as you've acknowledged) but the company chooses to use it anyway, then that's sufficient to represent intentional misuse. They are leveraging this misunderstanding in their branding, then hiding behind the "real" meaning when it's convenient.
Companies test and invest heavily in their branding, which includes a full reasoning of the connotations associated with the words they choose. There is literally no way that Tesla is unaware of people's common misunderstanding.
So, maybe it's clearer if you look at it another way: why choose a word that could create any confusion when there are countless other choices?
>the pilot in command in this video is actively scanning for traffic, he is physically positioned to take control of the aircraft, he is paying attention to instrumentation, and is actively participating on frequency. In other words despite having an autopilot: he is still piloting the aircraft.
If a driver took a similar monitoring posture there are n-situations in which he/she would not have time to react to avoid an accident. There is generally far-greater margin of error and time for correction when an aircraft's autopilot fails. This is why a system that requires such monitoring in an automobile is a fundamentally flawed design. There are too many situations in which there is simply not enough time.
Because drivers are expected to a.) allow the system control of the vehicle but b.) recognize its failures and take back control to correct within milliseconds? That's super-human and, at best, adds n units to the human's reaction time--with potentially devastating consequences.
And, remember, it's beyond "environment monitoring". Drivers must now correct for when the vehicle does not recognize a hazardous situation and also respond when the vehicle itself suddenly creates a hazardous situation (like veering towards a barrier). There is no amount of "environment scanning" that can predict such a malfunction.
> "Tesla is extremely clear that Autopilot requires the driver to be alert and have hands on the wheel."
I am a Tesla fan, and although I previously didn't understand the criticism for the name, I now see some negatives of a name like "autopilot". IMO it implies non-intervention (and yes I know Tesla warns about this etc), but at the current stage of technology and regulation, maybe "autopilot" wasn't the best naming choice?
Naming their system "autopilot" goes beyond the marketing dept overstepping and into the territory of irresponsibility.
The "average" definition of autopilot per Wikipedia is "autopilot is a system used. . . WITHOUT CONSTANT 'HANDS-ON' control by a human operator being required."
And yet Tesla's disclaimer states:
"Tesla requires drivers to remain engaged and aware when Autosteer is enabled. Drivers must keep their hands on the steering wheel."(2)
The disconnect between the name and the actual function is needlessly confusing and probably irresponsible.
They should change the name to "driver assist" or something more accurate given that mis-interpreting the system's function can lead to death of the driver or others.
Many people in these threads are stating very loudly "well if Tesla didn't want to be culpable they shouldn't call it Autopilot".
Two things:
1. Regardless of the name, Tesla has never marketed this as a product which allows you to at any point stop paying attention to the road or take your hands off the wheel. At least to my knowledge.
2. The name. "Autopilot". The only time I'd ever heard the term "autopilot" before Tesla used it was in Airplanes. I'm not entirely sure how everyone is forgetting this, but planes have had "autopilot" for decades and all passenger planes still have pilots. Commercial jets have TWO pilots (at least) who are highly paid and have a huge amount of flight time in order to ensure that someone is paying attention at all times. All of these aforementioned jets have "autopilot". Tesla is absolutely not holding their drivers to a higher standard than they should given the name "autopilot". I'm not sure why this is so often parroted but it's nonsense.
I find this argument so often. Autopilot has never been a term for autonomous, just as its used in aviation. Just because people don't know the proper term or have an erroneous idea of the term, doesn't mean tesla has to have the burden of people misinterpreting what it says.
I fully understand the frustration with people thinking Tesla's driver assist is more than what it is. But what I don't understand is the issue people have with the product name.
Almost all commercial airlines have an autopilot, but not one of them flies without an actual pilot and co-pilot in the cockpit. The only thing an airplane autopilot does is keep the bearing and altitude constant -- Tesla's "autopilot" actually does a bit more than that. Is the outrage over calling it "autopilot" based on the public's misunderstanding of how an airplane's autopilot works?
> talk about things like “autopilot” instead of “driver assist”
As stated countless times before, autopilot in planes isn't even geared towards handing most flight scenarios or challenging conditions. Tesla is technically correct to call it this, even though this naming is confusing to consumers who think "plane flies itself" and think it means their car can drive itself in all conditions and avoid at-fault incidents - which most likely will indeed lead to more deaths.
Which is a tiny tiny percentage of the general population.
As has been said it is what the general population understands "autopilot" to mean which is the important part. The fact that the niche and general understandings are different should not be a gap that a company inserts itself into to mislead the public as to their products capabilities.
Yes, most people don't know the nuances of what "Autopilot" means in the aviation industry, but trying to educate the general public is a losing proposition vs just telling Tesla to rename the system.
Naming their system "autopilot" was risky, I bet Tesla's attorneys pushed back hard on that.
Why? To me "autopilot" means "automatic".
Wikipedia suggests the "average" definition is similar to my own - "An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of a vehicle without constant 'hands-on' control by a human operator being required."
And yet Tesla's disclaimer states "Tesla requires drivers to remain engaged and aware when Autosteer is enabled. Drivers must keep their hands on the steering wheel."(2)
In plain words that dissension between the name and the actual function is needlessly confusing and probably irresponsible.
I agree that it's necessary to be very, very careful with nomenclature, operator instruction, and user controlled options when dealing with anything safety related in a product marketed for the general public. But I can see where Tesla might be coming from calling it "autopilot": they're following along in the same vein as previous "autopilot" systems such as those found in aircraft. As your wiki link states, aircraft autopilots of varying complexity have been around for a very, very long time, but they did not ever mean "no need for a pilot". The ancient RAE naming of "pilots' assister" is probably more descriptive of the function to the average person, and by the same token Tesla could have called it "driver assistance" or similar. Even so, I think Tesla would have a reasonable argument that the term "autopilot" has been around for over 100 years and it was always a safety assistance feature, not a driver replacement. That argument would be strengthened by the fact that there's already a widely used term of full automation: "self driving car", which they didn't use.
At the same time it never hurts to be overly cautious, if only because terminology is such a trivial thing to change and the cost of confusion (even if only in terms of PR, unfair or not) can be significant. Operation of aircraft is a significantly more niche area with significantly more stringent requirements at all levels then operating a non-commercial motor vehicle, so it would be reasonable to expect pilots to understand more terms of the art.
"Why do they think that?
It's unreasonable to assume that. Autopilot is a term most people would he familiar from where? Commercial aviation, right?"
When you think of 'most people' - think 'Grade 9 education'.
Swaths of Americans grauduate HS with difficulty reading.
I used to market to retail mobile stores, like Sprint, and store managers had difficulty understanding the concept of 'percentage'.
The lowest common denominator is low, and when it comes to safety ... it's the fool among us (or within us because we all have faults) that is the target.
I think it should just be called 'cruise control' and that's that. Tesla can market it as being 'better' but that's about it.
I cringe every time I hear the term autopilot used in that context.
well one thing to note is that what the public thinks an aircraft autopilot can do is not exactly what it does do. hence the reason many object to Tesla's use of the name, they are exploiting the ignorance of the public with regards to the capability of the product.
And yet that is quasi criminal (from an ethical pov) that they have worded it that way for 2 reasons:
a. When you buy a car why should you even care about that hw/sw distinction, and more importantly do you have the distinction in mind at all time, and are advertisement usually worded that way, stating that maybe the car could become self-driving one day (but without even stating the maybe explicitly, just using tricks)
b. It is extremely dubious that the car even have the necessary hardware to become a fully autonomous driving car. We will see, but I don't believe it much, and more importantly competitors and people familiar with the field also don't believe it much...
People clearly are misunderstanding what Tesla Autopilot is, but this is not, ultimately, their fault. This is Tesla's fault. The people operating the car can NOT be considered as perfect flawless robot. Yet Tesla's model consider them like that, and reject all responsibility, not even considering the responsibility that they made a terrible mistake in considering them like that. We need to act the same way as when similar cases happens for a pilot mistake in an Airplane: change the system so that the human will make less mistakes (especially if the human is required for safe operation, which is the case here). But Tesla is doing the complete opposite! By misleading buyers and drivers in the first place.
Tesla should be forced by the regulators to stop their shit: stop misleading and dangerous advertisement; stop their autosteer uncontrolled experiment.
Well, I agree with much of what you say, but all I was trying to say is this: If 'autopilot' is a misleading name for Tesla's advanced driver assist system, then isn't it also misleading for airliners to use that term? To me, the two systems appear to be very similar in what they can do.
Most drivers aren't pilots. They don't know what autopilot actually does. They expect it to drive the car for them, and they probably think autopilot does the same on planes. It was a mistake for Tesla to borrow the term.
I often defend autopilot's use with real drivers. I've driven with it extensively and have seen how other people actually use the system. There are abuses, but no more than I've seen with other systems. And none of them have been fooled into thinking that it is autonomous when it is not.
I've even defended the name Autopilot, since we've accepted names like "ProPILOT" which are no different in my mind.
Having said that, Tesla's phrasing for FSD is awful, and horribly misleading. I see the effects of this among non-owners all of the time. They really do think the system is fully self driving, when it is not.
The company should be forced to stop this practice. It is deliberately deceptive.
I agree there's a lot of (potentially dangerous) ambiguity in what the name "autopilot" means and implies.
Personally, I'm not a fan of the name "autopilot" for 2 reasons.
Firstly, the name is sexy and filled with hype. Even for a fully autonomous "driver go to sleep" level 4 driving system, "autopilot" would be a great sounding name (much better than "full autonomy" or anything more explicit in my opinion).
Secondly, the name deviates from industry semi-standard naming such as "cruise control" or "lane assist". I don't believe Tesla's automated features are more advanced than the rest of the industry[0], but the name sounds more advanced. Maybe this is good marketing, maybe this is dangerous and deceitful, maybe both.
[0] I'm not an expert on the state of self-driving systems. If anyone here who is reads this and has some evidence that Tesla's autopilot features are more advanced that what's offered by Audi (for example), I'd love to hear why / see some sources.
I think the core of the issue lies in what “using autopilot” means.
If the driver had used it according to the instructions (with hands on the wheel, while driving the car, watching the road as a driver always should), the crash would not have occurred.
Tesla is between a rock and a hard place, they need to make it crystal clear that the car performed as expected. The message is not intended for the deceased driver’s family but for everyone listening, including everyone who owns a Tesla.
It’s not an “autopilot”, it’s a lane assist. I see this as a naming failure more than anything else.
I didn't really have a problem with Tesla or Autopilot's latest issues until I re-read this sentence:
>Autopilot was not operating as designed and as described to users: specifically, as a driver assistance system that maintains a vehicle's position in lane and adjusts the vehicle's speed to match surrounding traffic.
My problem is with Autopilot's branding - it's called AUTOPILOT.
The name isn't "Maintain Lane Position" or "Cruise Distance" or something boring that describes it better - it has AUTO in the name.
Typical drivers aren't airline pilots who complete thousands of hours in flight training and have heavily regulated schedules. We're just people who are busy and looking for solutions to our problems.
If Tesla doesn't want people to think Autopilot functions as crash avoidance/smart vehicle control/better than humans in all situations or blame Tesla for accidents (whether human or machine is at fault) it should come up with a less sexy name.
>To be fair this is mostly a problem with the general public's understanding of the term autopilot and not with the actual systems that have used that name before. Aeronautical autopilots would probably only be classified as level 1 or maybe level 2 [autonomy] when that term was first coined and used to describe them. Even now I am not sure if we would classify the average autopilots you find on a commercial airliner as being fully at level 4.
I don't think Tesla's naming it autopilot should have any impact on any legal discussions. I am not sure the driver should be responsible for everything that happens to the car while autopilot is engaged. However I think it is a completely fair and reasonable expectation that a driver understands what autopilot is capable of doing before they engage it. I don't think Tesla (at least through their marketing, I have heard some questionable things about their salespeople) has been misleading about that in any way. I don't have a lot of faith in people handling a Tesla responsibly if the only thing they know about autopilot is that it is named autopilot.
reply