I am asserting people have a set idea of what the word "autopilot" means, and it doesn't mean "unable to pilot on its own without me being fully attentive to it at all times". And I am also asserting that this name was chosen specifically for this implication.
This isn't a debate about dictionary definitions, it's a debate about human behavior.
People who say that "Autopilot" is a bad name for this feature aren't basing it on an imperfect understanding of what autopilot does in airplanes. They're basing it on how they believe people in general will interpret the term.
What I'm saying is I don't think it has anything to do with calling it autopilot, and even less to do with it not meeting the technical definition of autopilot.
People are using it in this way because they're able to, and they'll continue to do so until they're not able to. I think we agree here actually. The name isn't the problem really the issue.
In this case I mean that choosing “autopilot” as a name was probably not meant to trick anyone. Just an overestimate of the layperson’s understanding of the aircraft equivalent.
I think the argument against the term 'autopilot' is less about the technical accuracy, and more about the implication and assumptions of the layman. To most people, 'autopilot' suggest that they can be totally hands-off, which isn't true yet.
> I also think “Autopilot” is a wilfully deceiving name for a barely functional “copilot”
I'm confused by this. Generally, "autopilot" has traditionally referred to a relatively dumb computer that is capable of keeping a vehicle/craft on an arbitrary heading.[0] Whereas a "copilot" is generally a human with similar skill and training as the pilot. If a vehicle manufacturer called their system a "copilot" that would surely be far worse than Autopilot.
(Or in the colloquial sense, "autopilot" can also refer to a person who is performing a task without conscious cognitive awareness. "I started getting ready to go to work this morning like I was on autopilot, but then I remembered today is Saturday.")
That CNBC article seems to be supporting my position, not yours. It's quite clear that autopilot is an aid, not an autonomous pilot substitute, and that the pilot still handles certain parts of the flight and must be ready to take over if something happens. Unless your point is that everyone thinks autopilot means more, and this article is correcting that notion?
I fully agree that if just about everyone thinks a word means something, then it means something. I'm not trying to argue based on some technicality. What I am arguing is:
1. I'm not at all sure that this understanding of "autopilot" is as ubiquitous as you say it is.
2. Even if that understanding is nearly ubiquitous, I can hardly fault someone for using "autopilot" to mean something simpler if they are doing so because they are familiar with actual autopilot systems and are naming by analogy to the systems, not to popular understanding of the term.
3. If people really do all think that "autopilot" means a fully autonomous system, the fact that no such thing is found on real airplanes means that they're a bunch of idiots, and I'd really like to know where that idea came from.
You dont have to be pilot or even remotely interested in aircraft to know the term. Its like "Blackbox" everyone with basic education has heard about it.
>I bet for most people autopilot means computer does driving.
That is the claim but there is no evidence at all. Everyone knows there is a pilot in almost every aircraft and that autopilot is just a computer that takes work away. If it would fly alone there would be no pilot.
There should be no people with a driver license who think autopilot means no human needed. Its completely absurd. That word never meant that and its not people misinterpreting the word that sleep in their cars and crash it. These people are not mislead by a word they are just irresponsible and fully aware of it or drunk.
Well again, Autopilot probably is an accurate word then - because consumers should clearly know the limitations and nuances of Autopilot to safely operate it, and a failure to understand those limitations can clearly have deadly consequences.
Is the argument "You can't call it Autopilot because Autopilot refers to a complex system that requires a skilled operator and needs people to pay constant attention"?
I think you are nitpicking definitions here when it is not the issue.
The issue is that the general public think of "Autopilot" as the magical piece of technology that automatically pilots thing while you sip a pina colada and otherwise switch off mentally.
What the 0.5% of people who actually know what is required of the flesh and blood pilot when using an aviation autopilot is not the issue. It is what the majority understand.
Changing what Tesla is allowed to call it is the path of least resistance rather than trying to educate the general public on "what the team actually means in the industry that made the term famous and therefore should be universally applied elsewhere".
It's exactly the right connotation for people who know the connotation. I suspect a large fraction of the population thinks that "autopilot" means "no human pilot needed."
It's unreasonable to assume that.
Autopilot is a term most people would he familiar from where? Commercial aviation, right?
I would argue most people know it's not a system that achieves that goal. Just ask yourself. Do you think airline passengers would feel comfortable if a cabin announcement told passengers: Both pilots are going to take a nap now for the next 10 hours.
I do think Tesla should do a better job making sure it's understood that there are limitations. I don't think they need to change the name of the feature because some people claim to have a certain expectation of it which at closer inspection is not justified.
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.
I'm dubious about the idea that normal people will think of airplane autopilots as autonomous. There's even a common English idiom, "on autopilot," meaning to act brainlessly.
But let's say it's true. Why would people think that, when that's not how they actually work? That's an honest question I asked above when I said, "Where did everybody get the idea that 'autopilot' implies full autonomy?"
Do we at least agree that actual factual airplane autopilots are fairly analogous to Tesla's? If so, how is it "torturing the language" to use the term that way? Overestimating the intelligence of the public when creating a term is a long way from "torture."
I'd say that half of the issue is that even if the term is accurate, people hear the word autopilot and expect it to be a lot more than what it actually is.
Autopilot may be a marketing name and people can voice their opinion about it as not being appropriate or whatever but where did the notion come from that "Autopilot" means it works on its own without human?
Autopilot is a term most commonly used in aircraft and that's where almost everyone has head from it before. At the same time almost everyone should be fully aware that aircraft on autopilot do in fact need at least one human pilot. Almost all aircraft inevitably crash if left on autopilot with no further human interaction.
So where does this idea come from that the word "autopilot" somehow misleads people into believing that it does not require a human.
reply