Humans are much, much, much more capable than the absolute state-of-the-art robots when it comes to doing things in an uncontrolled environment.
Have to read the whole comment before replying. You can't just grab individual statements out of an entire argument and choose to go after those. I mean you can, but you can't expect someone to actually engage you then.
Would you prefer your pilots to fly your plane with no AI assistance?
First of all, when you actually understand a self-driving car stack, you'll realize those super-human reflexes are more human than you think. The stack is complicated and not only are there delays to be expected, some hardware syncing requirements guarantee certain delays in the perception pipeline. It's still better than a person, but it's nothing close to approaching instantaneous. Likewise, sensors can get dirty, and blah blah blah there are other weaknesses robots have that humans don't. My point is simple: robots aren't perfect. In fact, they are almost always much worse than most people realize.
> will make it less likely to get into an uncontrolled environment
You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying less likely to get into an accident. I'm saying the world, where cars drive, is an uncontrolled environment - and the current state of robotics is such that humans are better for doing things in the real world. There is no "less likely to get into an uncontrolled environment" because by definition you are always putting it into that situation.
> Would you prefer your pilots to fly your plane with no AI assistance?
AI assistance is fine. AI replacement is not.
There is nothing that remotely resembles AI in the cockpit of any current airliner. All flight control logic including autopilot, autothrottle, TCAS & GPWS, ILS & autoland, and so on are based on simple feedback loops and programming techniques that go back decades.