The problem is with the naming, it's not even close to autopilot by any means, it's an extremely loaded term.
1. Autopilot makes sense in the air and at the seas because there are large expanses of nothing over long distances. Autopilots on sea and air will do things like adjust angle of attack and maintain heading.
2. Driving is a much harder problem that an autopilot cannot be applied to at the level of success as a plane or ship, given the literally hundreds of other drivers someone can encounter on a simple drive along with dense clusters of traffic.
3. Unlike ships and boats that traverse large expanses of nothing, driving involves following highly localized paths with very specific rules and very little time to react to mistakes.
4. There are also far more dynamic, less predictable situations than you find on sea or air (such as construction sites, bad weather, bad road conditions like ice and large puddles, potholes, someone dropped a stove off the back of a truck and it's in the middle of the road, DUI checkpoint, et cetera).
5. A plane or ship operates under simpler conditions than cars do, yet even those require one or more people awake, sober and on duty at all times. We have drivers who are literally dozing off, watching movies or completely non-attentive in a situation that is far more complicated.
We're not at the stage where anything can self drive reliably. All current gen aided driving should be labeled or marketed as aided or augmented driving, period. The fact that people think it can literally drive them home is a problem. There are situations that the AP cannot handle and will turn itself off, forcing the driver to assume control. If the driver begins to overestimate its capabilities, they may not be ready to assume control. The only thing it should be used for is to take action to avoid collision faster than a human can, with a competent human driver at the wheel.
