6 ms·

Tesla should just rename their ADS from AutoPilot to CoPilot.

by noisy_boy 8y ago

samfisher83 8y ago
Its really Lane Keep assist and Dynamic radar cruise control. Its better than most manufacturer's systems.
- whttheuuu 8y ago
  This isn't true at all with Navigate On AutoPilot which was released a month or so ago. You set your destination on the GPS and it will take you exit-to-exit on highways. This is not lane assist or distance control you see on other cars.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - samfisher83 8y ago
    You still have confirm and requires active human participation. Its not like its really "Auto."
    - moduspol 8y ago
      You actually don't have to confirm if the exit lane is split from your lane, which is pretty common. It will signal for you and get you into the appropriate lane. If reaching your destination requires switching lanes into one that is not split from your own, you'll have to confirm it. But that may change in the upcoming weeks or months.
  - taneq 8y ago
    Bolting a GPS-driven highway exit selection onto LKAS+ACC isn't really hard or risky. Once a control system can reliably keep a car safe in freeway traffic including lane keeping (even near gore points), lane changes, matching speed with traffic, and keeping safe distance from the car in front... just picking an exit given a destination address is the easy bit. It's a classic case of Moravec's paradox.
- moduspol 8y ago
  It will also change lanes for you if you signal, and wait for a safe opening if necessary.
sabertoothed 8y ago
Not that discussion again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot
- azag0 8y ago
  It doesn’t matter what the technical definition is in aviation. What matters is what expectations about Tesla’s technology it creates for most people.
  - rukittenme 8y ago
    One would argue the point of marketing is to changes people's expectations.
- simion314 8y ago
  Do you think that most people know how airplanes autopilot works? What people know is that airplanes can drive and land themselves and human pilots are there as backup/safety.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  Euroncap literally flagged it as an issue in their report. So when you say "not that discussion again" are you asking people not to discuss the actual topic of this thread?
Piskvorrr 8y ago
That assumes benign intent. All that we have seen so far is a sales pitch finetuned juuuust on the line "we won't say it's autonomous (or that it's not), but we'll nudge suggestively, point and nod." Of course, when anything happens, the old spiel "we didn't actually say it" comes out.
vinay427 8y ago
This would have also allowed for more fanfare with a fitting name if/when they eventually release a fully autonomous system.
ryandrake 8y ago
Or link it with cruise control like other manufacturers are doing. The general public kind of gets what cruise control Does, and that sets the right expectation. The public really has no idea what an aviation or marine autopilot system is all about.
- reubenswartz 8y ago
  Yes, having tried it, I'm a big fan, but they should have called it "Ultra Cruise" or something like that.
- amyjess 8y ago
  I would be OK with regulations requiring them to call it "adaptive cruise control with lane assist" and forbidding automakers from coming up with their own names for it.
ginko 8y ago
Isn't the point of a copilot that it can safely fly and land a plane unlike an autopilot.
- duiker101 8y ago
  Maybe, but I think that's beside the point. The point is that it's about people's perception of what something should do from it's name. And 99% of the people will associate co-* with a help and auto-* with something that can do it on it's own.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  Planes can land entirely on autopilot. Just requires the airport to have ILS, and a fairly modern autopilot.
  - mnw21cam 8y ago
    Yesbut. It also requires the meat-sack to be sitting in the cockpit telling the autopilot which heading/altitude/waypoint to head to next, listen to ATC instructions, input the correct ILS frequency into the system, etc. And that's when everything goes absolutely fine.
    - Someone1234 8y ago
      Planes can absolutely land themselves. The only point you're making is that an autopilot cannot entirely replace a pilot, but that was never in contention. The poster above claimed an autopilot cannot land, it can, and it does every single day. Additionally ILS frequency can be automatically set via electronic charts, particularly if the flight plan contains the destination runway (which isn't always possible).
      - labcomputer 8y ago
        > Planes can absolutely land themselves. No. They can’t. Not unless you have a IIIc approach and autopilot. Those things are not common. If you don’t have both of those things, the pilot must, at minimum, fly the flare (for a IIIb approach, which are somewhat common at large airports). Even if you have a IIIc approach, the pilot still monitors systems, deploys high lift devices and landing gear, makes the go/no decision. There is no reasonable interpretation of “planes can absolutely land themselves” which is in any way true.
aequitas 8y ago
Or don't borrow from other industries making meaning ambiguous and just call it for what it is: Driver assist
jononor 8y ago
Hopefully one of the (European) consumer protection agencies require them to reduce their misleading marketing soon.
slg 8y ago
I understand the argument that Tesla is generally misleading is their selling of Autopilot. I can also understand the argument that no company should be selling this type of semi-autonomous tech that can result in the worst of both human and autonomous driving. But I simply don't understand the argument that the only problem with this feature is the name. It just makes the whole thing seem silly. We already put numerous requirements on people before they are allowed to legally drive. Why are we not blaming drivers for knowing nothing about their cars beyond the simple name of a feature? You literally can't turn the feature on in a Tesla without it warning you about its limitations. Doesn't the driver have some responsibility to pay attention to those warnings or at least spend a few minutes learning about this feature before they trust it with their lives (and the lives of others)?
- simion314 8y ago
  I agree, drivers that do not pay attention share the blame too, but is not fair to blame only the drivers, the "autopilot" requires that the human driver maintain 100% attention but is the system monitoring the driver properly, is it trying the best to keep the driver engaged to the road ? No it does not do that because is not comfortable for the customer, so safety is sacrificed.

Tesla should just rename their ADS from AutoPilot to CoPilot.

samfisher83 8y ago

Its really Lane Keep assist and Dynamic radar cruise control. Its better than most manufacturer's systems.

whttheuuu 8y ago
This isn't true at all with Navigate On AutoPilot which was released a month or so ago. You set your destination on the GPS and it will take you exit-to-exit on highways. This is not lane assist or distance control you see on other cars.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- samfisher83 8y ago
  You still have confirm and requires active human participation. Its not like its really "Auto."
  - moduspol 8y ago
    You actually don't have to confirm if the exit lane is split from your lane, which is pretty common. It will signal for you and get you into the appropriate lane. If reaching your destination requires switching lanes into one that is not split from your own, you'll have to confirm it. But that may change in the upcoming weeks or months.
- taneq 8y ago
  Bolting a GPS-driven highway exit selection onto LKAS+ACC isn't really hard or risky. Once a control system can reliably keep a car safe in freeway traffic including lane keeping (even near gore points), lane changes, matching speed with traffic, and keeping safe distance from the car in front... just picking an exit given a destination address is the easy bit. It's a classic case of Moravec's paradox.
moduspol 8y ago
It will also change lanes for you if you signal, and wait for a safe opening if necessary.

sabertoothed 8y ago

Not that discussion again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot

azag0 8y ago
It doesn’t matter what the technical definition is in aviation. What matters is what expectations about Tesla’s technology it creates for most people.
- rukittenme 8y ago
  One would argue the point of marketing is to changes people's expectations.
simion314 8y ago
Do you think that most people know how airplanes autopilot works? What people know is that airplanes can drive and land themselves and human pilots are there as backup/safety.
Someone1234 8y ago
Euroncap literally flagged it as an issue in their report. So when you say "not that discussion again" are you asking people not to discuss the actual topic of this thread?

Piskvorrr 8y ago

That assumes benign intent. All that we have seen so far is a sales pitch finetuned juuuust on the line "we won't say it's autonomous (or that it's not), but we'll nudge suggestively, point and nod." Of course, when anything happens, the old spiel "we didn't actually say it" comes out.

vinay427 8y ago

This would have also allowed for more fanfare with a fitting name if/when they eventually release a fully autonomous system.

ryandrake 8y ago

Or link it with cruise control like other manufacturers are doing. The general public kind of gets what cruise control Does, and that sets the right expectation. The public really has no idea what an aviation or marine autopilot system is all about.

reubenswartz 8y ago
Yes, having tried it, I'm a big fan, but they should have called it "Ultra Cruise" or something like that.
amyjess 8y ago
I would be OK with regulations requiring them to call it "adaptive cruise control with lane assist" and forbidding automakers from coming up with their own names for it.

ginko 8y ago

Isn't the point of a copilot that it can safely fly and land a plane unlike an autopilot.

duiker101 8y ago
Maybe, but I think that's beside the point. The point is that it's about people's perception of what something should do from it's name. And 99% of the people will associate co-* with a help and auto-* with something that can do it on it's own.
Someone1234 8y ago
Planes can land entirely on autopilot. Just requires the airport to have ILS, and a fairly modern autopilot.
- mnw21cam 8y ago
  Yesbut. It also requires the meat-sack to be sitting in the cockpit telling the autopilot which heading/altitude/waypoint to head to next, listen to ATC instructions, input the correct ILS frequency into the system, etc. And that's when everything goes absolutely fine.
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    Planes can absolutely land themselves. The only point you're making is that an autopilot cannot entirely replace a pilot, but that was never in contention. The poster above claimed an autopilot cannot land, it can, and it does every single day. Additionally ILS frequency can be automatically set via electronic charts, particularly if the flight plan contains the destination runway (which isn't always possible).
    - labcomputer 8y ago
      > Planes can absolutely land themselves. No. They can’t. Not unless you have a IIIc approach and autopilot. Those things are not common. If you don’t have both of those things, the pilot must, at minimum, fly the flare (for a IIIb approach, which are somewhat common at large airports). Even if you have a IIIc approach, the pilot still monitors systems, deploys high lift devices and landing gear, makes the go/no decision. There is no reasonable interpretation of “planes can absolutely land themselves” which is in any way true.

aequitas 8y ago

Or don't borrow from other industries making meaning ambiguous and just call it for what it is: Driver assist

jononor 8y ago

Hopefully one of the (European) consumer protection agencies require them to reduce their misleading marketing soon.

slg 8y ago

I understand the argument that Tesla is generally misleading is their selling of Autopilot. I can also understand the argument that no company should be selling this type of semi-autonomous tech that can result in the worst of both human and autonomous driving. But I simply don't understand the argument that the only problem with this feature is the name. It just makes the whole thing seem silly. We already put numerous requirements on people before they are allowed to legally drive. Why are we not blaming drivers for knowing nothing about their cars beyond the simple name of a feature? You literally can't turn the feature on in a Tesla without it warning you about its limitations. Doesn't the driver have some responsibility to pay attention to those warnings or at least spend a few minutes learning about this feature before they trust it with their lives (and the lives of others)?

simion314 8y ago
I agree, drivers that do not pay attention share the blame too, but is not fair to blame only the drivers, the "autopilot" requires that the human driver maintain 100% attention but is the system monitoring the driver properly, is it trying the best to keep the driver engaged to the road ? No it does not do that because is not comfortable for the customer, so safety is sacrificed.