I agree that it's necessary to be very, very careful with nomenclature, operator instruction, and user controlled options when dealing with anything safety rela

I agree that it's necessary to be very, very careful with nomenclature, operator instruction, and user controlled options when dealing with anything safety related in a product marketed for the general public. But I can see where Tesla might be coming from calling it "autopilot": they're following along in the same vein as previous "autopilot" systems such as those found in aircraft. As your wiki link states, aircraft autopilots of varying complexity have been around for a very, very long time, but they did not ever mean "no need for a pilot". The ancient RAE naming of "pilots' assister" is probably more descriptive of the function to the average person, and by the same token Tesla could have called it "driver assistance" or similar. Even so, I think Tesla would have a reasonable argument that the term "autopilot" has been around for over 100 years and it was always a safety assistance feature, not a driver replacement. That argument would be strengthened by the fact that there's already a widely used term of full automation: "self driving car", which they didn't use. At the same time it never hurts to be overly cautious, if only because terminology is such a trivial thing to change and the cost of confusion (even if only in terms of PR, unfair or not) can be significant. Operation of aircraft is a significantly more niche area with significantly more stringent requirements at all levels then operating a non-commercial motor vehicle, so it would be reasonable to expect pilots to understand more terms of the art.