Its nice to make semantic distinctions, but thats not how most of the population (people buying the car) think of it.

How do you know what the population thinks? Have there been an polls done?

Because the original parent comment is using an analogy to aviation terms, and depending on a more than cursory understanding of the limits of an aircraft autopilot. I am willing to make a monetary bet most members of the population do not understand the precise limitations of an aircraft autopilot, though I admit I have not conducted a poll to verify this. I also think Tesla likely named it this to differentiate it from the competitions systems, and in my eyes it is pretty obvious what distinction they were aiming for most people to make.

I bet if I asked 10 people what is more autonomous, an autopilot or a copilot 10 out of 10 of them would say a copilot.

Id you'd asked me, I wouldve said the autopilot. Cause its more "automatic" and a co-pilot would still require me to be there, hence the "co".

But thats just how I understood it before.

I think Tesla probably called it 'autopilot' specifically to clarify the limitations - it just sets heading, speed, etc.

They should simply call it "Driver Assistance" which is very appropriate for such systems.

It's the same thing as putting "fat free" on the Twizzlers. It's technically true which means they can get away with it. Except that that probably kills more people than "autopilot" ever will.

It's not food companies' fault that the English word “fat” has multiple meanings and is the normal word for several of them.

You don't think they're intentionally using that word for precisely that reason?

But there's no other commonly-used word for it!

"Sugar free" (oops, not true)

"No calories" (not true again)

There are a hundred ways to say that something won't cause you to gain weight. They chose the one that sounds like it means that even though it doesn't, because it also has a different meaning which is technically true.

But autopilot in a plane doesn't require the pilot to take over in a split second. Keeping you level, at the right speed, in the right direction, etc. is enough to keep the plane safe. Pilots have tens of seconds to reorient themselves to avert any disaster.

In contrast, Telsa "autopilot" requires constant vigilance since you might have to take over without any warning.

> But autopilot in a plane doesn't require the pilot to take over in a split second.

That's a very broad statement. Autopilots can disengage at any time and you are supposed to take control pretty much immediately.

Where immediately is generally measured in seconds (with the exception of perhaps autoland). Normally the autopilot will have the plane trimmed at all times, so the plane will continue flying its current course for some time without control inputs.

Like the op said, split second takeover is not required in a flight autopilot

Yes it is... Especially when the autopilot causes the aircraft to enter a dangerous configuration.

> In contrast, Telsa "autopilot" requires constant vigilance since you might have to take over without any warning.

Neither version eliminates the need for the pilot/ driver to cease situational control. Pilots have absolutely flown into the side of mountains while on autopilot. (Ironically called "Controlled flight into terrain"). The big difference between the two is in an aircraft there is less to collide with when the pilot screws up.

The big problem isn't whether the two are actually similar or not, the problem is most people assume that autopilot on an aircraft does a lot more than what it actually does. In most cases, autopilot in an aircraft maintains heading and altitude, that's pretty much it.

Adding to all the confusion is the fact that "Autopilot" in aircraft can mean a giant pile of different things, but the term was originally coined quite a while ago to refer to basic altitude/ bearing hold.

With a typical aircraft autopilot, the pilot is allowed to take their hands off the controls. Tesla's manual quite clearly forbids that.

> Tesla's manual quite clearly forbids that.

Now. It used to only require you to touch the steering wheel for 1 second every 15 minutes.

Until regulators clamped down on that as grossly inadequate.

Is there an archived copy of the manual somewhere that doesn't say to keep your hands on the wheel?

I read it a few years ago and again a few months ago; from what I recall in both cases the manual insisted that drivers keep their hands on the wheels. But this is at odds with how their cars are promoted and evidently programmed. It seems to me that Tesla has been coyly but deliberately encouraging and facilitating a usage pattern which, for legal/liability reasons, they forbid in the manual.

> It seems to me that Tesla has been coyly but deliberately encouraging and facilitating a usage pattern which, for legal/liability reasons, they forbid in the manual.

I'd agree with you there. Same with Summon. "Deal with a fussy child while your car comes to you" says the promotion. Legalese says "must not be distracted (like you might be by a fussy child)".

I'm sure that the manual probably says something exactly like that: "Driver is required to keep hands on the wheel. Your vehicle will warn you to put your hands on the wheel if they are not every fifteen minutes". Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, and don't mind our CEO blatantly not keeping his hands on the wheel in our videos.

You are splitting hairs. The problem isn't whether someone has their hands on the controls or not, it's the fact that the operator isn't paying attention to what's going on outside the vehicle.

It's not splitting hairs if the expected reaction time and circumstances are so different. That being very unattentive can kill you in both doesn't make the differences irrelevant.

> It's not splitting hairs if the expected reaction time and circumstances are so different.

No, the likelihood of incident is vastly lower in the air, but the required reaction time is not necessarily different and could easily be a lot lower, particularly if you are flying IFR. That's the whole point, much like in a car, a pilot must have eyes outside the cockpit.

Again, I'm not arguing that Tesla is right here about advertising, just that the two technologies are very similar in nature. The other big difference is the fact that pilots have to go through training and are tested on their understanding of the specific technology they control. Drivers, never have to be certified or trained on any specific vehicle.

If a pilot treats autopilot in a plane the way some people treat it in a Tesla, there would be a lot more fatalities in air travel, particularly in smaller aircraft with older technology.

It's not splitting hairs to say Tesla has a level 2 system at best but Elon Musk wants you to believe level 5 might be ready by next year.

No, it isn't. But it doesn't remotely relate to what I said either. Aircraft "autopilot" wouldn't be considered Level 2 either.

That's the point, there is a vast difference in the publics perception of what autopilots do in aircraft versus what they actually do.

"All Tesla cars come with Full Self Driving Capability"

they even replaced - hardware to - capability to be even more ambiguous.

It is insane that that is allowed. I'm not sure if it is more or less insane that there are Tesla fans that would defend that.

Well, per the article, it is NOT allowed, at least in Germany. I have been kind of amazed how hands off the advertising and road safety regulators have been with Tesla so far, tho.

You're transposing airplane terminology with automobile terminology. In a car, the co-pilot is typically someone that sits in the passenger seat and functions only as an additional set of eyes. They can't take complete control over the vehicle from that spot. Cars, unlike airplanes, don't have two sets of full controls.

> You're transposing airplane terminology with automobile terminology.

Well yeah... transposing terminology is how an analogy is supposed to work. And I didn't pick the analogies - Tesla did and then you proposed another flying analogy!

> In a car, the co-pilot is typically someone that sits in the passenger seat and functions only as an additional set of eyes.

Do you mean a co-driver? Like in a rally car? I've never seen that called a 'co-pilot' before.

If you don't want to confuse with aeroplanes, why didn't you suggest 'co-driver'?

This comment seems to pretty much ignore the lingua franca of American drivers. Transposing terminology only works to the extent that the public actually understands how an airplane autopilot functions, which they don't. Plenty of people refer to their front seat passenger as a co-pilot or navigator, but I've never heard anyone call their passenger "co-driver".

> Plenty of people refer to their front seat passenger as a co-pilot or navigator

Can you use that in a sentence?

Like 'will you be my co-pilot while I drive to the store?' I don't see it to be honest.

"I don't know exactly where the turn is, I need you to co-pilot."

The word literally everyone uses in that scenario is "navigate". Aside from rally drivers, nobody in the history of ever has used co-pilot in that scenario..

C'mon... you know that's not true. Maybe it's a regional thing or a geographic thing but I've lived in multiple US cities on both coasts and in the north and south and have had people use the term on many occasions. I even had a friend when I was growing up whose parents designated the role of "co-pilot" to the eldest when they were old enough to sit in the front seat.

"I need you to be my co-pilot and watch out for cops."

In my experience, you're correct. "Shotgun", "copilot" and "navigator" are all terms used interchangeably in my family. And urban dictionary has entry for 'co-pilot' from 2005 referring to the shotgun passenger.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that the general public has an inaccurate understanding of what airplane autopilots are capable of. The belief that modern airline pilots just push a button to turn on the plane then take a nap until the plane lands is widespread.

In naming their system after a system the public has a poor understanding of, Tesla is being misleading.

Tesla conveniently used a word where it actually means something far simpler than what the general public knows it to mean.

Tesla knew this but they did it anyway because $$$.

However good the public think autopilots are, I'm sure they don't think they're more capable than a co-pilot!

I agree that 'co-pilot' would also be a very misleading name.

I think they should avoid these sort of airplane analogies entirely and just describe features as they are. E.g. call lane assist "lane assist", call adaptive cruise control "adaptive cruise control." These are terms that reasonably convey what the systems do, without exploiting the public's general ignorance of how airplanes work.

Etymologically though, the co-pilot is pilot along with you and supports you, while the auto-pilot is a pilot by itself, independently (dare I say: autonomously).

"Autopilot" remains a very misleading term in the car context.

No you have it the wrong way around.

A co-pilot is equal to a pilot.

An autopilot automates just some functions of piloting.

That’s my point: what happens to be the case in actual aviation is in some sense the opposite of the words‘ connotations. So, they’re very misleading terms. Which becomes problematic when marketing a powerful, but limited technology to the mass market.