&gt; But the argument goes both ways here as well: take an arbitrary human (such as yourself, if you happen to be human) and try placing this human in the cockpit of a landing jet plane, in a semiconductor factory, in the oval office of the White House, in the kitchen of a gourmet restaurant, on a horseback in Siberia, or equipped with only a spear in the middle of the Amazonas jungle. There are humans that have been programmed to do well in each of these situations, but it is very unlikely that the human you were thinking of (perhaps yourself) would know what to do in more than at most one of these situations.<p>At least the random human will have a chance at doing something and if the situation isn&#x27;t life or death like the landing plane or the Amazon jungle could with time actually learn to operate in the new environment even without interacting with other people who could teach them. That&#x27;s what&#x27;s missing from AI the flexibility to operate in a chaotic environment. Until relatively recently the slightest thing going wrong in even moving through an area or performing a simple task like moving a box would completely break.<p>&gt; (It&#x27;s hard to understand why anyone would want to be in a plane flown by a human, now that there are alternatives.)<p>Detecting and ignoring spurious inputs and extreme edge cases are one of the main reasons that I feel better if there&#x27;s a person alert and at the controls of a plane. Extreme cases like Quantas 32 where a huge number of systems are absolutely destroyed would be a huge challenge for modern autopilots which are great but aren&#x27;t tested or designed for emergencies. [1]<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;lifehacker.com&#x2F;the-power-of-mental-models-how-flight-32-avoided-disas-1765022753" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;lifehacker.com&#x2F;the-power-of-mental-models-how-flight-...</a>