Clint Eastwood's latest film, "Sully," is about a man who excels

at his job. Specifically, it tells the story of Captain Chesley

Sullenberger and how, on a frosty afternoon in January 2009,
he landed a plane in the Hudson River. The film is frugal and
solid, and generally discreet when it doesn't frighten you. Let
this piss you off as much as it sounds surprising because when
we walk in, we'll know how this story ends. But Mr. Eastwood is
also very good at his job, a talent that gives the film tension as
well as autobiographical beauty. It seems so improbable that a
movie is made about an aircraft accident. The movie revolves
around how Captain Sullenberger and his co-captain had to
undergo a trial in court for landing on the Hudson river. Even
after saving 150 passengers and performing a heroic landing on
the river Captain's intentions were investigated properly. In the
end, the Captain's decision of landing was praised and he was
set free by the court.
But in this age of artificial intelligence and machine learning, it
is important to discuss whether a machine or AI could have
done something better. Can they replace humans in such
situations?
In my view, humans have always shown strong grit under such
pressurized situations. Right now if we compare a Tesla
autopilot with a human driver, the autopilot has failed a lot of
times due to some errors. In such cases where human lives are
at risk, it is of utter importance to not have even a minor error.
Moreover, the landing was possible because of the emotions of
the captain. If it was a machine handling the plane after a while
it would have given the signal of not being able to fly anymore
due to a certain error. But because Captain understood the
importance of human lives he gave his everything to save them.
So I would like to conclude by saying that such jobs as the pilot
of an airplane should always be with the humans as they can
connect with others and have that emotional quotient while
taking decisions.