I don&#x27;t think they&#x27;re arguing against automation, just that completely driverless vehicles won&#x27;t be the optimum path. I think there will be some applications for which fully driverless vehicles will be fine, such as trucks transporting goods between loading bays and taxis collecting and dropping off at street addresses, and many others where some level of driver control will be useful.<p>Take their example of submarines. Fully autonomous submarines are completely possible, but what they point out is that some level of human control is more useful. They don&#x27;t say why, but my guess is that this is because if the sub comes across something unusual that merits further investigation, humans are better at making that judgement call than a robot would. The same principle applies to the Mars rovers. But it also applies to plenty of routine uses of vehicles. Most of the time I&#x27;m driving from my house to a car park or street parking space and such journeys are probably completely automatable. But sometimes I arrive at e.g. a country fair and the parking is in a field and I know I want to park over there in a place which will soon be shaded by that tree, and not in a different place where it looks a bit muddy. At times like that I would want much more direct control over the vehicle and an automated system would not be able to make such decisions for me.<p>So while the article does a poor job saying so, I think the point is that 100% full driverless automation isn&#x27;t the best answer in every situation. It might be a fine solution for many purposes, but not all. They&#x27;re arguing against a (perhaps imagined and possibly straw man) maximalist automation position such as &#x27;in 20 years time no cars will have manual controls&#x27;.