That's always been the case for any driving assistance systems that automakers offer, AFAIK. Do you object to the state of driving assistance in general or just how Tesla implements it?
While Tesla allows for and gives the impression of it doing more than that, when it can't. You are expected to react within a split second at any time. Actually just driving the car is a way simpler task than supervising someone else that has unintuitive blind spots.
Something that google discovered early on and anyone that thinks about it realize. A car that mostly drives itself is way more dangerous than a car without any assistance at all.
Ask Uber.
Comma does not.
https://medium.com/@comma_ai/how-to-write-a-car-port-for-ope...
"No ADAS system currently on the market has safety guarantees on perception or planning algorithms.
So, what must be guaranteed is the ability of the driver to easily regain full control of the vehicle at any time. In openpilot, this is done through the satisfaction of the 2 main safety principles that a Level 2 driver assistance system must have:
1. The driver must always be capable to immediately re-take manual control of the vehicle, by stepping on either pedal or by pressing the cancel button;
2.The vehicle must not alter its trajectory too quickly for the driver to safely react. This means that while the system is engaged, the actuators are constrained to operate within reasonable limits."
At least that's how I think it works in Germany.
So no guarantees whatsoever then. Because you are always responsible and are always expected to recover from anything the autopilot might ever come up with.
Teslas do fail in deadly ways. Everyone that cares to look knows this. Yet Tesla is fine with it, even while knowing that humans can't reason about safety when the car drives perfectly the other 99% of times.