RWA:
If it's all the same to you, I'll continue my policy of flying, as far as possible, in aeroplanes in which the pilots, not the computer programmers, have the final say.
Aside from Lemurian's point that the latest Boeing aircraft have a substantially similar design (to the point where Rananim, one of the most vehement anti-automation voices on here actually
retracted his posts and apologised), would these be the same pilots who drive 747s into one another? Or possibly the pilots who deploy spoilers while airborne? Maybe even the kind of pilots who let ther kids fly the plane for a bit?
Alternatively you could be dealing with the kind of pilots that prevent accidents, and the automation is there to do exactly the same. It's a major misconception that the A320 computer is there to override the pilot if the computer doesn't like what the pilot is trying to do (also the source of the 'one pilot and a dog' joke, which while amusing is pretty far from the truth). To the best of its ability the computer is there to facilitate things for the pilot, and to provide an extra safety net when things go wrong. It's a little frustrating that you brought Habsheim up yet again, but the fact is that the automation kept the aircraft wings-level down to the ground and in all likelihood saved some lives.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that no system can be perfect, and neither is any pilot. The AI sales staff found the former, and far too many pilots, crew and passengers have found the latter out the hard way.