Every single time this is posted, I have to remind people that the video posted on Tesla's own Autopilot website [0] says this RIGHT at the beginning:

"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".

[0] https://www.tesla.com/autopilot

I don't know when that went up there, but that's not demonstrating autopilot - that's demonstrating Full-Self-Driving (FSD) capabilities.

Less than 10 seconds in it's demonstrating functionality that Autopilot does not have - turning from one road onto another, stopping at intersections, etc.

Internet Archive suggests it's been up since late 2016, with the video, and only minor changes to copy since then.

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.

> Current Autopilot features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous.

You're conflating FSD with Autopilot.

Every time you do, I remind you that the page also makes it clear that current systems require supervision.

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.

Did the car salesman showed you video of that FSD demonstration, while they were describing driving assist features of a car you were buying?

No, but they used to run this ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTdR91G2L7c

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.

> Names don't really mean anything, it could have been named anything.

Names absolutely have meaning. Why do you think Tesla named it “auto pilot” and not something else?

“Suicide Mode” would be as successful, I’m sure.

How about "Californian Roulette"?

Maybe because it literally means what it does?

No, not really. If you're comparing to planes, they have automated systems that will almost always keep them at a completely different altitude to avoid potential collisions.

Plane pilots have to pay very little attention with autopilot on compared to Tesla drivers with Autopilot on.

> No, not really. If you're comparing to planes, they have automated systems that will almost always keep them at a completely different altitude to avoid potential collisions.

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.

There are different autopilots for planes. They differ in capabilities. Mostly the pilot sets a heading, altitude and speed and the airplane will maintain that. The main collision avoidance system is Air Traffic Control telling the pilot where to fly when. Then there are other warning systems that only alert the pilot (terrain and other planes).

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.

> Names don't really mean anything

This is so, so wrong. Names explicitly set people's expectations.

Since autopilots on airplanes literally fly straight lines between waypoints, it's pretty clear that whatever it means in airplane contexts has zero bearing on what it means in a car context. Having an airplane autopilot fly in proximity to anything else is a recipe for swift death.

> Autopilot never meant full automatic control. In a plane context, which was the most common until now, it's only used to keep a trajectory steady, and anything unusual has to be taken care of by a human pilot.

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.

"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."

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland

No, this is not pedantic. An autopilot is a complex system that needs full time management. It looks like this [1], and you need to correctly twiddle the dials every few minutes to get the plane to do what you want. It's not a button, it doesn't avoid traffic, and it doesn't know about the broader flight plan. Even fancy autopilots that can follow waypoints and intercept a localizer and autoland and all that - managing them looks more like programming a crappy computer than pressing a button.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot#/media/File%3AFMS_...

Which means that both pilots 1.set the parameters (not a single button push), 2.follow closely that the plane does what they would have, 3.ready to take over at any moment, as the AP cannot even reliably detect it's not on the happy path; this does take off some of the cognitive load off the pilots, but it's very far from the narrative "push button and have a coffee" that's being peddled here.

In fact, it's more of "hold this heading and glideslope" than anything else - a smarter cruise control, if you will.

"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?

Somebody is promoting and selling "full self-driving", with fine print specifying "in some indeterminate future". Perhaps that could be...nah, not related at all.

The first automated landing on a commercial flight took place before microprocessors were invented, to give you an idea of complexity. To this day, autoland means that the aircraft follows a radio beam down to runway, pitching slightly up and reducing thrust to idle when radar altimeter reading falls under 50 ft. It's really primitive tech, essentially a line following robot.

Yes, the public holds misconceptions about how much the autopilot on a plane does. But some of their beliefs are accurate, and would be dangerous when extended to a car: like how, when the plane AP is engaged, you don’t need sub-second reaction times for possible obstacles. You do need that in a Tesla.

Fairly sure that you do need that for autoland, to engage TO/GA (for go-around) and take control. Most other cases, AP disengagement indeed means "now we think about what next".

No. Required reaction times would be around 2-3 s. Even if you took 10s, you're not going to die -- you might hit the edge lights though

At which point you're arguing semantics: "it's not the short landing that kills you, it's the impact into whatever you hit there!" You're describing Asiana Airlines 214, whose crash killed 3.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214

No I'm saying the pilot flying an aircraft correctly configured for autoland in which the autoland system encounters a fault does not require subsecond reaction times to avoid a crash.

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.

> From what I've seen

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.

Just expand and define the words, and don't let your knowledge about how the tech works block your ability to reason.

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.

Well, I mean, my auto-mobile requires me in order to be mobile so maybe words are more than the sum of their parts.

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.

Are you being intentionally caustic? The phrase "running on autopilot" is an established colloquialism for doing something without being mindful of it, and almost every major dictionary definition of "autopilot" states that it is a system used to navigate something without a human.

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.

So do you have a problem with the name or a problem with people intentionally being stupid?

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.

I wouldn't normally use it as a source, but Urban Dictionary shows that colloquially plenty of people consider autopilot to be complete automatic control (worryingly, even to the point of blackout drunkenness).

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=autopilot

That's referring to the human condition of "being on autopilot" (aka. your higher cognitive functions aren't doing much and you're brain's operating primarily on reflex). It's generally only used to describe situations where you've done something dumb because you were impaired or weren't really paying attention.