8 ms·

In addition to your points I think GM also acted with more integrity in naming the feature. Tesla calling it autopilot is irresponsible and dangerous.

drcross 9y ago
Tesla's autopilot is functionally identical to a boat or plane autopilot. If a pilot or skipper relied upon autopilot as a full self driving system they would most likely be dead before the end of their trip.
- gamblor956 9y ago
  Tesla's autopilot function is horribly named and not at all identical to plane autopilot. Modern autopilots are actually fully capable of handling takeoff, flight, and landing without interaction from the pilot. However, pilots continue to handle takeoff and landing procedures to maintain skills in those areas as generally an autopilot failure during those times would not be recoverable.
  - Piskvorrr 9y ago
    Capable of handling _each_ of the functions (NOT switching between the modes - "sit on tarmac, punch in destination, go take a nap"; plus I'm not entirely sure if the feature you describe as autotakeoff even exists outside Hollywood), exclusively on the happy path with strict minima, with pilots required to take over at once in case of any irregularity. Highly convenient, but not a self-flying miracle.
    - gamblor956 9y ago
      The features I have described are available in the Dreamliner and the Airbus 380, and have been more than a Hollywood fantasy for at least a decade... Self-flying isn't as difficult as people think it is. There are fewer obstacles and risks to deal with.
      - Piskvorrr 9y ago
        Nope. There are features such as thrust assymetry compensation, and you could technically engage the autopilot as low as 200 ft AGL, but I maintain that there is no automatic takeoff available on commercial aircraft (there's something related on catapult-launched fighter jets, but that's quite another world). If you're claiming a feature exists "in the Dreamliner and the Airbus 380...over a decade" - well, [citation-needed], then: all the sources that I've managed to find are unanimous that it doesn't, e.g. http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths/ http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths/ To quote the pilot above: "That fantasy insists on outpacing reality is perhaps symptomatic of our infatuation with technology, and the belief that we can compute our way out of every dilemma or complication."
    - Chriky 9y ago
      Some modern airports REQUIRE pilots to use auto landing if their plane supports it. I know because I have a friend who is a commercial pilot and they don't like flying those routes because it is boring. Most airports let the pilots fly manually if they want.
      - Piskvorrr 9y ago
        Possible. What I'm saying is "the plane can do many things, but 1. won't switch modes e.g. from cruise to autoland, and 2. even so, it's just a different way of controlling the plane, it does not fly itself."
  - mschuster91 9y ago
    > Modern autopilots are actually fully capable of handling takeoff, flight, and landing without interaction from the pilot. No they're not. The pilot needs to initiate the sequences first, and good luck when something unexpected happens - a Tesla (or any truck/car with auto-distance-control) will brake when a car changes lanes right in front of it, a plane will blare sirens (okay, to be fully correct: it will tell the pilot a preferred course of action to avoid a collision) if another plane comes too close for comfort but not do any evasive action on its own. Even in a perfectly ordinary flight there are always the ATCs to serve as master controllers for all airplanes... something you also have in railways, but not at all on the road. On the road everyone is on his own.
    - ghshephard 9y ago
      Modern airplanes are pretty good at avoiding head-on collisions though - so good, that pilots are trained not to override the planes judgement, and just let it communicate with the other plane and make the best calls as to whether to climb or dive...
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  Something like 92% of Americans don't own a boat, let alone one fancy enough to have an autopilot. 99.9% of Americans don't own a plane. As such, most Americans have no exposure to an autopilot and its functionality beyond perhaps having heard the name. Tesla themselves muddle the waters. On https://www.tesla.com/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/autopilot, it states "All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver." Further down, it talks about "Full Self-Driving Capability", "All you will need to do is get in and tell your car where to go.", "The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat.", etc. It's not shocking folks have gotten the impression it's a self-driving feature instead of a fancy cruise control.
  - Piskvorrr 9y ago
    The second point is salient - theoretical hardware capability is still a long shot from actual Level 5 autonomous driving.
    - Jesus_Jones 9y ago
      Yes exactly, they don't clarify at all that the full driving capability is after they finish the hardware. and they have taken forever. I'm glad I have a hw1 tesla. it works, not full automation but a lot of good features like tacc
  - chc 9y ago
    Full self-driving is a vaporware feature separate from the current Autopilot. It's confusing that they would advertise a feature that doesn't exist, but it's not like they're claiming Autopilot works that way. More importantly, the page where you configure your car explains the distinction very clearly (and charges extra for full self-driving, even though it doesn't exist!), so I doubt anyone has actually bought a Tesla thinking that Autopilot was full self-driving.
    - FireBeyond 9y ago
- Negitivefrags 9y ago
  Justifications to real life are not really relevant because that isn't what regular people know. What "autopilot" means is what you see in the movies. When a computerised voice in a sci fi movie says "Autopilot engaged" what does that usually mean?
  - Piskvorrr 9y ago
    That you're spending so much time in fiction that you are losing a grip on reality. There's also teleportation, flying broomsticks and miles-long star dreadnoughts in those stories; surely you don't expect those as well?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - QasimK 9y ago
      It’s not about him, but about what your average person believes autopilot means
      - Piskvorrr 9y ago
        Point taken.
      - arkades 9y ago
        Does it even have to be about the “average” person? What percentage of the population has ever been exposed to real autopilot systems? For all the rest, sci-fi autopilot is the only reference point. A person doesn’t have to be particularly ignorant not to be exposed to these things; I’d tentatively posit most people growing up in an urban center have never been behind the console of a plane or a boat.
        QasimK 9y ago
        I agree. I think by average I was referring to what you said - most people have never controlled planes or boats. Perhaps “ordinary” would have been clearer.
- Angostura 9y ago
  ... so you can pretty much go to sleep, assuming you aren't taking off or landing. Got it.
- bonestamp2 9y ago
  True. Although, that ignores the fact that even hobbyist pilots and skippers tend to have far more training and discipline than the average motorist. The name might be accurate, but the self awareness of the name is terrible.
Piskvorrr 9y ago
Before they were in cars, autopilots in planes were there to keep the plane on the approximate course, in good conditions, with the pilot expected to supervise the operation and take over at immediate notice. Difference?
- IntronExon 9y ago
  Yes, almost no Americans are pilots, and few own boats. The name seems deliberately misleading to most people, and in a safety-critical application no less.
  - Piskvorrr 9y ago
    That much is possible. (OTOH, the phrase "(don't expect any thinking now,) I'm on autopilot" seems to be in common use as well.
- Steko 9y ago
  The difference is comparable to the difference in licensing requirements for driving cars and piloting airplanes.
unclebucknasty 9y ago
Agreed. I'd go further though and say the semi-autonomous feature itself is fundamentally flawed. It's a mishmash of what the car will do and what the human is expected to do; the whole while making the human responsible even if the car fails in doing its part. So, I don't buy into their disclaiming of responsibility if the car fails in what it is doing autonomously. That is, it's one thing if a safety measure fails to engage (for instance, the car fails to brake to avoid an accident while still under the human's control). However, it's a different matter when the car offers to actively perform a function in lieu of the human, then fails in properly performing it. By the mere existence and offer of the function, the company is essentially making a claim as to the vehicle's fitness for that function and asking the human to trust that claim by assigning control to the vehicle. No amount of verbiage that tries to assign responsibility back to the human can offset the fact that the vehicle was under its own control when it failed.

drcross 9y ago

Tesla's autopilot is functionally identical to a boat or plane autopilot. If a pilot or skipper relied upon autopilot as a full self driving system they would most likely be dead before the end of their trip.

gamblor956 9y ago
Tesla's autopilot function is horribly named and not at all identical to plane autopilot. Modern autopilots are actually fully capable of handling takeoff, flight, and landing without interaction from the pilot. However, pilots continue to handle takeoff and landing procedures to maintain skills in those areas as generally an autopilot failure during those times would not be recoverable.
- Piskvorrr 9y ago
  Capable of handling _each_ of the functions (NOT switching between the modes - "sit on tarmac, punch in destination, go take a nap"; plus I'm not entirely sure if the feature you describe as autotakeoff even exists outside Hollywood), exclusively on the happy path with strict minima, with pilots required to take over at once in case of any irregularity. Highly convenient, but not a self-flying miracle.
  - gamblor956 9y ago
    The features I have described are available in the Dreamliner and the Airbus 380, and have been more than a Hollywood fantasy for at least a decade... Self-flying isn't as difficult as people think it is. There are fewer obstacles and risks to deal with.
    - Piskvorrr 9y ago
      Nope. There are features such as thrust assymetry compensation, and you could technically engage the autopilot as low as 200 ft AGL, but I maintain that there is no automatic takeoff available on commercial aircraft (there's something related on catapult-launched fighter jets, but that's quite another world). If you're claiming a feature exists "in the Dreamliner and the Airbus 380...over a decade" - well, [citation-needed], then: all the sources that I've managed to find are unanimous that it doesn't, e.g. http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths/ http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths/ To quote the pilot above: "That fantasy insists on outpacing reality is perhaps symptomatic of our infatuation with technology, and the belief that we can compute our way out of every dilemma or complication."
  - Chriky 9y ago
    Some modern airports REQUIRE pilots to use auto landing if their plane supports it. I know because I have a friend who is a commercial pilot and they don't like flying those routes because it is boring. Most airports let the pilots fly manually if they want.
    - Piskvorrr 9y ago
      Possible. What I'm saying is "the plane can do many things, but 1. won't switch modes e.g. from cruise to autoland, and 2. even so, it's just a different way of controlling the plane, it does not fly itself."
- mschuster91 9y ago
  > Modern autopilots are actually fully capable of handling takeoff, flight, and landing without interaction from the pilot. No they're not. The pilot needs to initiate the sequences first, and good luck when something unexpected happens - a Tesla (or any truck/car with auto-distance-control) will brake when a car changes lanes right in front of it, a plane will blare sirens (okay, to be fully correct: it will tell the pilot a preferred course of action to avoid a collision) if another plane comes too close for comfort but not do any evasive action on its own. Even in a perfectly ordinary flight there are always the ATCs to serve as master controllers for all airplanes... something you also have in railways, but not at all on the road. On the road everyone is on his own.
  - ghshephard 9y ago
    Modern airplanes are pretty good at avoiding head-on collisions though - so good, that pilots are trained not to override the planes judgement, and just let it communicate with the other plane and make the best calls as to whether to climb or dive...
ceejayoz 9y ago
Something like 92% of Americans don't own a boat, let alone one fancy enough to have an autopilot. 99.9% of Americans don't own a plane. As such, most Americans have no exposure to an autopilot and its functionality beyond perhaps having heard the name. Tesla themselves muddle the waters. On https://www.tesla.com/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/autopilot, it states "All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver." Further down, it talks about "Full Self-Driving Capability", "All you will need to do is get in and tell your car where to go.", "The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat.", etc. It's not shocking folks have gotten the impression it's a self-driving feature instead of a fancy cruise control.
- Piskvorrr 9y ago
  The second point is salient - theoretical hardware capability is still a long shot from actual Level 5 autonomous driving.
  - Jesus_Jones 9y ago
    Yes exactly, they don't clarify at all that the full driving capability is after they finish the hardware. and they have taken forever. I'm glad I have a hw1 tesla. it works, not full automation but a lot of good features like tacc
- chc 9y ago
  Full self-driving is a vaporware feature separate from the current Autopilot. It's confusing that they would advertise a feature that doesn't exist, but it's not like they're claiming Autopilot works that way. More importantly, the page where you configure your car explains the distinction very clearly (and charges extra for full self-driving, even though it doesn't exist!), so I doubt anyone has actually bought a Tesla thinking that Autopilot was full self-driving.
  - FireBeyond 9y ago
Negitivefrags 9y ago
Justifications to real life are not really relevant because that isn't what regular people know. What "autopilot" means is what you see in the movies. When a computerised voice in a sci fi movie says "Autopilot engaged" what does that usually mean?
- Piskvorrr 9y ago
  That you're spending so much time in fiction that you are losing a grip on reality. There's also teleportation, flying broomsticks and miles-long star dreadnoughts in those stories; surely you don't expect those as well?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - QasimK 9y ago
    It’s not about him, but about what your average person believes autopilot means
    - Piskvorrr 9y ago
      Point taken.
    - arkades 9y ago
      Does it even have to be about the “average” person? What percentage of the population has ever been exposed to real autopilot systems? For all the rest, sci-fi autopilot is the only reference point. A person doesn’t have to be particularly ignorant not to be exposed to these things; I’d tentatively posit most people growing up in an urban center have never been behind the console of a plane or a boat.
      - QasimK 9y ago
        I agree. I think by average I was referring to what you said - most people have never controlled planes or boats. Perhaps “ordinary” would have been clearer.
Angostura 9y ago
... so you can pretty much go to sleep, assuming you aren't taking off or landing. Got it.
bonestamp2 9y ago
True. Although, that ignores the fact that even hobbyist pilots and skippers tend to have far more training and discipline than the average motorist. The name might be accurate, but the self awareness of the name is terrible.

Piskvorrr 9y ago

Before they were in cars, autopilots in planes were there to keep the plane on the approximate course, in good conditions, with the pilot expected to supervise the operation and take over at immediate notice. Difference?

IntronExon 9y ago
Yes, almost no Americans are pilots, and few own boats. The name seems deliberately misleading to most people, and in a safety-critical application no less.
- Piskvorrr 9y ago
  That much is possible. (OTOH, the phrase "(don't expect any thinking now,) I'm on autopilot" seems to be in common use as well.
Steko 9y ago
The difference is comparable to the difference in licensing requirements for driving cars and piloting airplanes.

unclebucknasty 9y ago

Agreed. I'd go further though and say the semi-autonomous feature itself is fundamentally flawed. It's a mishmash of what the car will do and what the human is expected to do; the whole while making the human responsible even if the car fails in doing its part. So, I don't buy into their disclaiming of responsibility if the car fails in what it is doing autonomously. That is, it's one thing if a safety measure fails to engage (for instance, the car fails to brake to avoid an accident while still under the human's control). However, it's a different matter when the car offers to actively perform a function in lieu of the human, then fails in properly performing it. By the mere existence and offer of the function, the company is essentially making a claim as to the vehicle's fitness for that function and asking the human to trust that claim by assigning control to the vehicle. No amount of verbiage that tries to assign responsibility back to the human can offset the fact that the vehicle was under its own control when it failed.