[abrouwers]

I might challenge with "autopilot is cruise control." To me, Tesla is marketing the feature much differently. Either way, looking up the definitions of each:

"Auto Pilot: a device for keeping an aircraft or other vehicle on a set course without the intervention of the pilot."

"Cruise Control: an electronic device in a motor vehicle that can be switched on to maintain a selected constant speed without the use of the accelerator."

[seanmcdirmid]

> "Auto Pilot: a device for keeping an aircraft or other vehicle on a set course without the intervention of the pilot."

All an auto pilot on an aircraft does is keep the plane flying in a straight line at a constant speed. It mostly doesn't do obstacle avoidance, or really anything else. Yes, you don't need intervention of the pilot, because it turns out going in a straight line in an airplane is pretty hard to screw up.

From that standard at least, modern cruise controls are more capable than airplane auto pilots. There is a widespread belief on HN, however, that people are generally very dumb and will mistake autopilot for something more like FSD.

[AlotOfReading]

    There is a widespread belief on HN, however, that people are generally very dumb and will mistake autopilot for something more like FSD.

I think the error here is that you're underestimating just how rare accidents are. Let's imagine there's some monstrously dangerous feature X that results in fatal collisions 10% of the time when misused. If we assume a person either uses it correctly or consistently misuses it, how many people (1 in N) need to be misusers to double the US fatality numbers?

You only need about 1 misuser in every 500-2,000 drivers, depending on how you do the numbers. Now obviously autopilot isn't as dangerous as our hypothetical feature X here, but do you think it's reasonable to argue that a small fraction of a percent of autopilot users might be misled about its capabilities by the name? I think that's a long way from saying "people are generally very dumb".

[MBCook]

It IS fancy cruise control.

That is not how it’s marketed at all.

[einarfd]

You are right, but unfortunately you are the least useful right, which is technical right.

That is definitely what auto pilot means in the aeronautical and maritime sphere.

But a lot of the general public has a murky understanding of how an auto pilot on a ship or a plane works. So for a lot, probably the majority of them. They will look at the meaning of those two words and land on that auto pilot, means automatic pilot. Which basically ends up beeing self driving.

Sure in a perfect world, they would look up what the term means in the sphere they do not know, and use it correctly, but that is not the world we live in. We do not get the general public, we want, but we have to live with the one we got.

[mannykannot]

You are also merely technically right. It would require an intentional suspension of one's theory of mind to not recognize the extent to how Tesla's own marketing of its products, and its determination to hide pertinent information in cases like this, is intended to perpetuate the popular misconception of its capabilities.

> ...we have to live with the [the world] we got.

There was nothing inevitable in how we reached this situation, and no reason to let it continue.

[goosejuice]

In both cases, they are driver assistance. A pilot is responsible and must monitor an autopilot system in a plane. We license drivers and pilots and the responsibility is placed on them to understand the technology before using it and putting themselves and others at risk.

Would Boeing or John Deere be responsible for marketing language or just the instruction manual. We know the latter is true. It's there any evidence of the former? Intuitively I would say it's unlikely we'd blame Boeing if a pilot was mislead by marketing materials. Maybe that has happened but I haven't found anything of that sort (please share if aware).

[jjulius]

The difference is in the sheer amount of training pilots have to go through, and the regulations that they, and their employers, are required to follow. This is tremendously different from a car that throws up a couple of warnings that can be quickly and passively acknowledged prior to your using "autopilot".

[slavik81]

While technically an autopilot might sometimes be as simple as maintaining a heading, the actual practical consequence is quite different for a boat or an aircraft than for a car. There is simply not much to crash into when you're in the air or open water. The result is that a much simpler mechanism is required to achieve the same result for the pilot.

When I worked on unmanned vehicles, you could have one operator control multiple speedboats because you typically had minutes to avoid collisions. Splitting attention would not be feasible with a car on cruise control, because you are never more than a few seconds away from crashing into something solid.

[gamblor956]

Would Boeing or John Deere be responsible for marketing language or just the instruction manual. We know the latter is true

Actually, the former is true. Courts and juries have repeatedly held that companies can be held responsible for marketing language. They are also responsible for the contents of their instruction manual. If there are inconsistencies with the marketing language it will be held against the company because users aren't expected to be able to reconcile the inconsistencies; that's the company's job. Thus, it's irrelevant that the small print in the instruction manual says something completely different from what all the marketing (and the CEO himself) says.

The "autopilot is limited" argument would have worked 20 years ago. It doesn't today. Modern autopilots are capable of maintaining speed, heading, takeoff, and landing so they're not just pilot assistance. They're literally fully capable of handling the flight from start to finish. Thus, the constant refrain that "autopilot in cars is just like autopilot in planes" actually supports the case against Tesla.