This reminds me of arguments in David Mindell's book, "Our Robots, Our Selves", particularly what he calls "the myth of full autonomy": """ The final myth is t

This reminds me of arguments in David Mindell's book, "Our Robots, Our Selves", particularly what he calls "the myth of full autonomy": """ The final myth is the myth of full autonomy. Engineers and roboticists tend to believe that technology is inevitably evolving toward machines that act completely on their own, and that full autonomy is somehow the highest expression of robotic technology. It isn’t. Full autonomy is a great problem to work on in the laboratory. But solving the problem in an abstracted world, difficult as it may be, is not as challenging, nor as worthwhile, as autonomy in real human environments. Every robot has to work within some human setting to be useful and valuable. """ - http://www.davidmindell.com/qa/ http://www.davidmindell.com/qa/ As a case study, Mindell talks about commercial airline pilots and the use of auto-land vs. heads up displays. (HUDs keep pilots' skills fresh and keep them engaged and informed during landings.) I like that the article suggests a technique for building systems, where Mindell's book isn't really useful in that way.