Re: Check out TheFlightChannel on YouTube
Point 5 is an interesting one.
On the one hand, presenting a simple, straightforward message in plain English sounds like a great idea: when the brown stuff hits the (turbo)fan, even the best-trained pilot is ultimately still a funny-looking ape and is susceptible to brain failure - hence the occasional tendency of pilots to pull up when their aircraft begins to stall and descend despite "knowing better". (That's also why you should always pay attention during the safety briefing, even if you've heard it a thousand times before - each additional hearing decreases the chance of your brain entering panic mode and going blank if you do ever need to take action.) A nice, easy message that doesn't require interpretation could be just what's needed to elicit an appropriate response.
On the other hand, though, we need to be wary of letting the automatic systems over-interpret the sensor inputs (which may be wrong anyway) and potentially display an incorrect diagnosis which could then influence the pilots' own diagnosis (or, indeed, short-circuit it when the pressure is on). Sometimes, it's better to let the meatbags think it through for themselves, taking into account all their observations and experience.
The other big problem with any automated system, be it the autopilot of a complex airliner or simply a high level of driver assistance in a car, is what happens when something occurs that the computer can't handle. It can take a few seconds for a person who has been largely out of the loop to overcome the startle response and re-establish a basic level of interactive control when the computer throws in the towel and dumps the controls back into their hands, and quite a bit longer to get back to full capacity. There's usually a bit more time before things go from bad to worse in an airliner with lots of empty air around it than there is in a car on a busy road, which is why we don't insist that pilots hand-fly the aircraft for hours on end, but it can still be an issue.