It's a very appropriate name for something that automates the long boring things while not eliminating a human operator for exciting transient things, just like in an airplane or on a ship. What about it was irresponsible? Sounds like a completely typical autopilot to me.
Possibly, but notice that this is not what I was responding to, which was purely the naming of the feature. So I'm not sure how this segue is relevant? Do you have anything to comment w/r to the name?
There is no such "clear" label on the video or website. Tesla titled the page "Tesla Self-Driving Demonstration". Tesla's embedded video is titled "Autopilot Full Self-Driving Hardware (Neighborhood Long)" with a video description that says[1]:
> Take a ride in a Tesla with Full Self-Driving Hardware.
That's it. Nowhere is it "clearly labeled as an ad for future software capabilities".
Fair points, but it doesn't invalidate what I said: I don’t see the word autopilot on that page or that video. And it's not on that page, and it wasn't in the video. The VIMEO video title doesn't appear on embeds.
It's a very appropriate name for people who understand aviation, but I've heard A LOT of people over the years say stuff to the effect of "the planes these days can fly themselves, they don't actually need pilots they're just in there due to the unions"
If the argument was "Tesla shouldn't use the Autopilot name because some people are grossly misinformed about aspects of the aviation industry" then I'd have some sympathy for it. I'd still consider it a poor argument, but at least it's one I could comprehend and respect.
"Everywhere outside of aviation industry"? I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but I can't avoid a strong feeling that you've just made that up. Where are all the different non-aviation autopilots in the real world we live in that "imply autonomous driving" when that term gets applied to cars? Are there bicycle autopilots? Crane autopilots? Bulldozer autopilots? All of them operating devices fully autonomously with no operator oversight? Because I can't for the life of me recall a real-world usage of the word "autopilot" that could give people the misconception you're alluding to. If there's a wide range of different real-world types of autopilots that almost all require no human attention except for airplane autopilots which do require it, all of them in such widespread use that they justify some people's notion that systems called "autopilots" are operator-free, then I must have completely missed that somehow. Please give me some examples of those different systems if they do exist.
Yes the word autopilot is used and understood by people autside of aviation to full autotonumous driving.
Just like spaceship is used space vessel able to travel through space. And teleport is used for moving from one place to another in blink of eye. They don't need to exist.
> the word autopilot is used and understood by people autside of aviation to full autotonumous driving.
...is a completely different statement from...
> because of what that term means everywhere outside of aviation industry. Aviation industry is one small niche.
The former implies that the common "understanding" by people who know little of consequence about the field is actually a misconception, whereas the latter insinuates that there do exist separate, valid, non-aviation usages of that word (of which you haven't provided any) which would justify such expectations about Tesla's product.
> They don't need to exist.
Except autopilots actually exist and they partially automate the boring parts of operation of means of transportation such as airplanes and ships. To argue with a fictional notion of a fully autonomous system against an actually existing device is like saying that you don't care what words mean and that you can reuse established terms to describe whatever you want, even if they already mean something very different from what you want them to mean. This is just like for example the East-German reinvention of the word "Aktivist". You're basically peddling Newspeak by saying that autopilot doesn't mean what it actually means.
> The term autopilot implies autonomous driving everywhere outside of that one small subgroup of people.
And with that you've disproven your own argument.
To the extent that "Autopilot" is used to refer to driving technology, it is as the brand name for Tesla's version of such. The name literally cannot be the causal factor as to why Tesla was supposedly wrong to pick that name, if it wasn't associated with autonomous driving prior to Tesla's use of it. Your argument is circular and thus invalid.
How is this relevant? Autopilots for airplanes don't eliminate human operators. Autopilots for ships don't eliminate human operators. Tesla's autopilot doesn't eliminate human operators either. On basis of that, I would deem the naming as very appropriate, the level of training of the respective required operators notwithstanding.
Interesting idea. Pilots require 40 hours minimum to take the certification test, but most need maybe 60 or so. Pretty sure I had a lot more than that for driving. In addition to the state-mandated driving instruction which was probably around 8 hours total (some of it "watching" other student drivers) I'm sure I had a few hundred hours of supervised driving under my belt before taking the test. Outlier? Maybe, but I can't imagine less than the 40-60 hours required for prospective pilots.
Also, I don't think student pilots typically train on autopilots. Those kinds of technology components are usually learned either on one's own or with an instructor/co-pilot after completing basic training. The basic pilot training focuses on safe pilotage from takeoff to landing, including land nav and radio communications, and ignores pretty much all modern technology.
That argument makes no sense. Generally speaking, tools are named based on the capability of the tool. We don't make a rule of changing the names of tools based on the predicted skill of the operator.
