This isn't a standard go term (for good reason) but would make a natural fourth idea with kikashi, probe and inducing move.
So, 'auto-probe' is to 'probe' as 'inducing move' is to 'kikashi'. You play in such as way as to make definite which out of two or more options you will follow.
This is one classical case. To begin with and the peep at a are two good options. After the exchange / Black knows he must play in such a way as to make the exchange look good (rather than stupid, mochikomi, etc.). 'Peeping on the wrong side' is a mistake, surely. You auto-probe yourself when you feel compelled to play one of and a.
This way of thinking is probably part of the rigidity mistake. It may be helpful in discovering and defining a problem one has to solve to win the game. It may also make the strategy of the game fit more closely with some template one understands. The loss, however, of flexibility is a real loss, unless one can provide a convincing reason to play one way. And in that case the concept seems to be rather lacking in content.
 This is my interpretation of some of Guo Juan's seminar teaching.
Tapir: I don't really get how this constitutes a natural (although misleading) term in relation to kikashi, inducing move, probe. A kikashi may well be and often is an inducing move, however, where is the auto-probe here? Is this an imagined move with being the answer? Even as a didactical concept this term is too fuzzy to learn sth. from it, imho.