Wrong on just about every account. It is not a matter of the alternative, it's a matter of what happens when an incident occurs and how a human is still the fail safe. Under many circumstances I would agree that auto-pilot is better. Long boring drives where the weather is good and the car operates normally being one of those. Where the automatic goodies fail is always when the unexpected occurs. A deer jumps out of the trees in front of the car, road debris too small for sensors or human eyes destroy a tire, weak pavement gives way, a patch of ice on a stretch road, etc.. etc.. We see the exact same thing in flight, and interestingly people here attribute a crashing plane to the human even when the human had to intervene because the plane was crashing despite automatic controls.
One day all of these exceptions can be built into software making the computers reaction better, but we are not there yet. TFA is not talking about having untrained people in cars in a decade, it's equating with current technology. So are you by the way. Arguing that we have all of these things covered in autopilot is provably false. Google cars can't drive today in poor weather, and a blowing paper bag is see as the same thing as a concrete block to sensors.
As I said below you can't compare automating complex issues like this to figuring how the physics for how lift works. It is not the same thing and not the same level of complexity.