It's ironic the constant talking about the Hudson landing as an example of human vs machine.
In fact, the landing was highly aided by automation... The protections kicked in several times, and when the plane actually landed on the river, Sully inputs were practically being ignored.
Actually, they got in the way and prevented Capt. Sullenberger from attaining the correct nose up angle that is recommended for a ditching. If, the crew had gone through the ditching check-list instead of the double engine failure then the automatics would have allowed the correct angle to have been achieved but without a pilot the automatics would have to know it was going to be a ditching rather than a mere double engine failure.
QF32 got a mention earlier. That was a situation where the crew basically ignored the automated system that was telling them what wasn't working because as quick as the relevant check-list was performed the system told them it had reoccurred. It was eventually decided to work out what was working and make a decision on that information. I cannot see any automated system coming to that conclusion.
There are numerous other examples of where a crew has basically stepped in over the logic of their aircraft systems to achieve a safe outcome. However, eventually there will be non-crewed flights but with people on the ground who can manually intervene when required. Automation and security of communications needs to be much further developed than its current state before that will be achieved but achieved it will be, eventually.