This assumes that no one is hand wringing over Ford's marketing. I haven't seen as much of Ford's marketing as I have as Tesla's, so I personally have written as many words about it.

But I have the same concerns about all marketing that positions cars as being capable enough that people don't have to pay attention. Until we hit true Level 4 or Level 5 self driving cards, I'm extremely concerned about the public's perception that they don't have to operate a motor vehicle. *Especially* if the vehicle is capable of enough automated driving that the driver doesn't need to pay attention during most of the operation of the vehicle.

To your specific point though, I think in general the public would view something marketed at "autopilot" as more capable than something marketed as "co-pilot", despite the significant capability advantage that a "co-pilot" actually offers over an "autopilot" inside the cockpit of an airplane.

The difference between Ford and Tesla is that Ford is "one of the good ones".

Not interested in leading the pack; happy enough to follow, crush smaller competition by their bloat, declare bankruptcy and take in hundreds of billions in handouts because of their irresponsibility and ineptitude.

Maybe that's the difference for other people, but it's not the difference for me.

Legacy branding doesn't mean anything when it comes to implementing and marketing self driving vehicles.

I care about the quality and level of the implementation, and the marketing positioning.

Because unlike auto-pilot the implication of co-pilot is that you're still primarily in charge of flying/driving/piloting the vehicle.

Umm no. Here's how it works

me: "you have the controls"

co-pilot: "I have the controls"

me: "you have the controls"

I am no longer flying the aircraft or even paying much attention to it. I could even get up and walk away from the controls. That's why co-pilots exist

The response I had earlier in the thread is absolutely applicable to this.

It doesn't matter. At. All. How the operations work inside the cockpit of an airplane. What actually happens in an airplane is 0% important to the conversation.

What actually matters is the public at large's perception of the term "autopilot" and their perception of the term "co-pilot". If the public perceives "co-pilot" as being less functional than "autopilot" then it does not matter at all that in aviation a co-pilot is actually more capable than an autopilot.

It’s not, the co-pilot might fly the plane for most of the flight.

That would imply that people know aircraft-slang. Which they clearly don't.

Common perception of a co-pilot is that a co-pilot _assists_ the pilot.

It's another perception/reality thing. I realize that the co-pilot shares the load, and is capable of being the pilot-in-charge, or having control of the aircraft. But one implies self piloting (Tesla), the other implies an intelligent assistant pilot.

I think it's because of the general nature of the prefixes of the words.

Co-pilot says that the two of you are doing it together. Co-operatively.

Auto = automatic = you no longer have to do it.

Think of an automatic vs. stick shift car. And automatic car you no longer have to shift.