The question is whether it is feasible (within a foreseeable timeframe) for humans to create automated systems that can deal with truly unique (not just "extremely improbable") events.
Philosophically answer, Why?
Automation and Standardization always come as couple. The current trend is towards highly automated systems for the problem "get from A to B in the air".
Earlier in history this was solved by humans, called pilot, which explored the way this can be done without too many losses. As always, if you reach a certain level of confidence in a "should be" process, you can start automation along the track. One of the reasons why we have this discussion is the fact that automation started before we really understood enough - we left the decision to commercial thinking ones too early.
You do not need an automated system to deal with "unforeseen" events after sufficient knowledge was gathered to avoid getting into situation where these events can have an impact. If you found a process, where you have a certain corridor of stability, the only thing you do is follow the center line and unforeseen events really do no harm, so ignore them. Creativity was only used in finding the path along which you do your automation within rock solid. Once you follow that road, it does not matter wether a properly functioning human, formerly called pilot, or a machine does the work, because the probability to hit an unforeseen event, which is potentially dangerous, is so low that this human does not carry the skill any longer anyways. This is one of the essentials of the "follow magenta line" discussion.
Do we want to develop an automated system with creativity and artificial intelligence? I say no, as it will produce them same threats to earth as humans do, but with much more power.