Some 20 years ago I participated in a meeting just south of Stockport where the subject was discussed along with a pilotless aircraft. The objective was to take a strategic view of commercial aviation and the means of reducing operating costs.
The pilotless topic was quickly revised to a single pilot, which would still reduce costs.
The windowless concept was being considered in order to reduce aircraft weight and thus cost. Glass, even plastic is relatively heavy along with the supporting structure/strength, and complexities of fuselage shape and aerodynamics of a cockpit. It’s much simpler and lighter to design and build a pressurised symmetric tube than a complex nose section with holes in it.
The windowless ideas were put on the back burner to be reassessed in line with advancements in structural materials and other means of cost reduction; there may come a point where the cost savings from having no windows vs investment and risk were not well balanced with the use of a plastic fuselarge.
The ideas of a single pilot aircraft were kept alive, if only as differing levels of training and qualification for two pilots. There were some interesting points relative to using two ‘equally qualified’ pilots for monitoring vs one qualified pilot together with technological monitoring.
The main risk in not having a pilot was that of public perception (even though driverless trains are being accepted), where a second pilot would be required if only for landing in the event of a combined incapacitation and systems failure. Which given some views of current operations might not be far from that trend.