this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2024
289 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

58150 readers
4686 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Without paywall: https://archive.ph/NGkbf

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rsuri@lemmy.world 93 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Autopilot “is not a self-driving technology and does not replace the driver,” Tesla said in response to a 2020 case filed in Florida. “The driver can and must still brake, accelerate and steer just as if the system is not engaged.”

Tesla's terminology is so confusing. If "Autopilot" isn't self-driving technology, does that mean it's different from "Full Self Driving"? And if so, is "Full Self Driving" also not a self-driving technology?

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 66 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

I heard Elon Musk call it: "Assisted full self driving". Which doesn't make any sense. LOL

[–] ChaoticEntropy 46 points 4 months ago (1 children)

"It's called whatever will make the stock price go up."

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago (1 children)

But you repeat yourself

[–] baggins@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The self in this equation is you. You're driving your self around. Full self driving 😉

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

oy that's a good one. 😋

[–] bitchkat@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

its called "Full Self Driving (Supervised)" now

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 3 points 4 months ago

If it really was full self driving, it wouldn't need to be supervised

[–] anlumo@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

The term autopilot comes from aviation, where the only kind of problem resolution an autopilot does is turning itself off.

Other than that, it just flies from checkpoint to checkpoint.

[–] machinin@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If only we could implement similar testing protocols to the aviation version to validate it's safety!

[–] anlumo@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

A full NTSB investigation for every single crash? I'm all for it!

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Depends on the autopilot. There are some that are as rudimentary as a "wing leveler." They only have control of the ailerons and can level the wings and maybe make turns. Other systems have control of all three major control axes and are integrated with the navigation systems so they can do things like climb to an altitude and level off, turn to a heading, or even fly holds and approaches.

They do require training on the part of the pilot to use in flight.

[–] anlumo@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, but even the best ones would happily crash into a mountain if the pilots don't set their altimeters properly (and ignore the terrain warnings).

[–] Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Are you sure that it is happy? Maybe the autopilot is really sad about its inability to not fly into a mountain.

[–] anlumo@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Hard to say, it might depend on the plane model. I've heard that Boeing 777s autopilots are really snarky.

[–] Rozz@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 4 months ago

It's marketing