I know this is just the wording of an analogy, but the thought process behind it concerns me. If a person or prices is "standing in the way" of flexibility, the reasons for it should be understood before simply removing it. Essentially the Chesterton's Fence argument.
Some rigidity is required to ensure things like quality and auditability. Boring things, but I would argue that these are boring things that are essential to a functioning and supportable product.
The following statement, however, seems to indicate they're being selective about where such a philosophy is being applied, which is obviously the smart play:
> A system that controls an aircraft or ensures a train does not pass a red signal is a piece of technology that includes software but must be designed, verified and validated by humans, Quadros said, and he does not expect that to disappear.
There's a certain amount of surprisingly rare 'self awareness' of the business and its processes required to know where to effectively apply AI, rather than blindly throwing it at everything.
Oh my...why I don't believe this statement of his?!