Finally, someone who knows how to use their brain . . .
Aircraft control systems which are designed around humans USE the human as part of the safety mitigation strategy . . . in the example here lots of stuff fails and the human can still control the aircraft, albeit with reduced performance. This is not a miracle, it's one of the key reasons the human is there is the first place and why the aircraft is designed in the way it is, it's a system, the human is part of it. Increasingly large parts of the non human part of the system are there to stop the human from screwing up . . . in reality . . .
Only a neanderthal would design an automated flight control system without an equally effective mitigation strategy, again possibly with reduced performance. A neanderthal solution would never be permitted to fly and kill people.
Automated control systems are perfectly possible, or very close to it, in the real world, today, The question is . . . is it cheaper to use a human despite their repeated and ongoing failures ?, after all they are cheap, readily available and reasonably good at the job and their failings are relatively well understoof. Are the benefits of fully automated systems justifiable given their likely cost ? Inevitably that cost will reduce, and inevitably the benefits will swing to the side of the machines.
Whether the justification is increased safety or reduced costs (it'll always be the latter despite people claiming it's the former), that change will happen.