Why do you believe we can train automated cars to deal with emergency situations or adverse conditions, but not airplane autopilots? What, fundamentally, preven

Why do you believe we can train automated cars to deal with emergency situations or adverse conditions, but not airplane autopilots? What, fundamentally, prevents innovations in processing power and automation systems from being able to do this? Your listing of current problems is fairly accurate as to the road blocks, however, your insistence that technology can't overcome them seems knee-jerk and unreasoned. > Replacing pilots in commercial aircraft is something that will not happen in my lifetime, or perhaps ever. It is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. Not everything can or should be automated for the sake of automating them. This in particular is obviously hyperbole (at least, being charitable), since the obvious case for computers taking over from pilots is that they solve several issues: their reaction times are considerably faster, they're considerably better at reasoning about the physics of a situation, they learn from all situations encountered by any artificial pilot (or actual pilot) we have records of, they have greatly larger numbers of training hours, and they don't suffer fatigue. Arguing that computers will never take over for pilots or that it's a bad idea requires that you raise an argument about the limits of computers that is in the /future/. As an aside, your comment about doctors is also wrong: I'd trust Watson to do diagnosing over most doctors I've met, and only expect my comfort with robotic doctors to rise as technology improves. I expect that the next major improvement we'll see is fully robotic surgeons. Again, your post reads as partly just unreasoned, anti-technology ranting, but I feel I should give you a chance to explain those points.