By the same logic you could say that airplanes shouldn't call their pilot assist system "Autopilot" either, because it requires monitoring and input from pilots who will need to disengage the system and intervene/fly manually in certain scenarios.
Autopilot is probably actually quite a good term for it if you actually compare it to a plane Autopilot - you don't expect pilots to be inattentive or away from the controls, and you expect them to intervene in certain scenarios and disengage autopilot if there is danger.
Because your industry has coined a term to mean something different from the literal meaning doesn't assert its the proper use the term. Auto implies automatically, it doesn't give any average consumer the indication that there needs to be manual involvement. I get it that pilots monitor stuff when planes are on auto pilot. That doesn't mean its correct for other industries.
I think the name isn't too blame, it's the misinterpretation of it (and possibly tesla overselling it).
"Autopilots do not replace a human operator, but assist them in controlling the vehicle, allowing them to focus on broader aspects of operation, such as monitoring the trajectory, weather and systems."
I've used an autopilot on a yacht and didn't expect it to dock or avoid ships. A plane autopilot doesn't freak out when the pilot takes their hands off the controls. So there seems to be room to allow the name but tighten how it's used.
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.
Calling it autopilot implies you have to pay attention. It implies it's NOT self-driving or autonomous any more than airplanes (which virtually all have some sort of autopilot) are.
reply