3 ms·

Every time I hear this "defense" it reeks of disingenuous fanboyism. People invoke factoids about how autopilot for airplane pilots works (they have training!)

Every time I hear this "defense" it reeks of disingenuous fanboyism. People invoke factoids about how autopilot for airplane pilots works (they have training!) as if it was common knowledge. Let's be clear here: Very few people know anything about airplane cockpits. When people read "autopilot" they think "automatic pilot" ie: the thing drives itself, similar to "auto login" login you in without a click. Marketing knows this, we all know this, let's not pretend it was an innocent mistake.

mikeash 10y ago
It's great that you think I'm being disingenuous. I'm not even defending it here. I'm just asking a legitimate question: how did people end up with this impression? I seriously do not understand it. "Automatic" does not imply "requires zero supervision."
- pjc50 10y ago
  People got the impression from films where the autopilot is a plot device: a character turns it on and then leaves the controls to go further the plot of the film. Also, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autopilot http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autopilot "a device that steers a ship, aircraft, or spacecraft in place of a person" In place of. Not under the constant supervision of.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    I don't see how that definition conflicts with real autopilots. The autopilot does the steering instead of the human. The human supervises. On a ship, for example, the helmsman is steering, but the officer of the deck is in charge.
    - pjc50 10y ago
      It doesn't necessarily conflict, but for someone who has no experience of real autopilots (ie most people), the assumption would be that it can do the job of driving the car so they don't have to.
- davidivadavid 10y ago
  It seems quite logical that people will in fact infer that it requires no supervision from the term "automatic." Because automatic is opposed to manual, which requires human intervention, people assume that automatic requires no intervention (of any kind whatsoever). From there they expect an autopilot to pilot automatically with no human intervention. You're absolutely correct in distinguishing supervision from other forms of intervention, but it's easy to see how people can merge both concepts. Edit: To further clarify, people assume "automatic" implies "you don't need to do anything." Supervising is doing something. So it conflicts with people's idea of "automatic."

mikeash 10y ago

It's great that you think I'm being disingenuous. I'm not even defending it here. I'm just asking a legitimate question: how did people end up with this impression? I seriously do not understand it. "Automatic" does not imply "requires zero supervision."

pjc50 10y ago
People got the impression from films where the autopilot is a plot device: a character turns it on and then leaves the controls to go further the plot of the film. Also, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autopilot http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autopilot "a device that steers a ship, aircraft, or spacecraft in place of a person" In place of. Not under the constant supervision of.
- mikeash 10y ago
  I don't see how that definition conflicts with real autopilots. The autopilot does the steering instead of the human. The human supervises. On a ship, for example, the helmsman is steering, but the officer of the deck is in charge.
  - pjc50 10y ago
    It doesn't necessarily conflict, but for someone who has no experience of real autopilots (ie most people), the assumption would be that it can do the job of driving the car so they don't have to.
davidivadavid 10y ago
It seems quite logical that people will in fact infer that it requires no supervision from the term "automatic." Because automatic is opposed to manual, which requires human intervention, people assume that automatic requires no intervention (of any kind whatsoever). From there they expect an autopilot to pilot automatically with no human intervention. You're absolutely correct in distinguishing supervision from other forms of intervention, but it's easy to see how people can merge both concepts. Edit: To further clarify, people assume "automatic" implies "you don't need to do anything." Supervising is doing something. So it conflicts with people's idea of "automatic."