@1&1~=Umm
Let's be honest humans are as bad with the 'unexpected' but in many cases our rules are very flexible and thus we can adapt.
No, we function because our intelligence allows us to understand the world from a larger perspective than simply what our senses report. We don't just have "flexible rules" for lane detection in isolation, we have abstract ideas for what a lane is as a concept, and why we do (or do not) follow particular road markings/signs/etc. Any indications that we're supposed to drive into oncoming traffic must be kicked up to higher level cognition, because that's contrary to the very purpose of traveling in lanes.
Mind you it's taken us umpteen millennia to develop that particular survival trait.
Not really. It doesn't take any great intelligence to move around in the real world without smashing into things. It can even be done in large swarms/flocks without the imposition of lanes. The problem is that these machine learning techniques are not based on any theory of intelligence. They're just useful little hacks for solving individual tasks that, despite having been difficult to solve with older techniques, lack any real complexity.
Will it change?
There is nothing I've seen in AI research in the past 40 years that points to any real desire to understand what intelligence actually is (or how it might differ from notions like "innate feelings"). All we've been getting is this chase after short-term results that wow the people who control the funding (both academic and corporate). Consequently, like Bruce, I have a very low opinion of what we're going to see in "Security and Survival in a Hyper-connected World". When they can be so easily tricked, the assertion that self-driving cars are going to save lives is dubious at best.
aee5896c0ba0343f2be82baf28d9f9924ca238d60f3bfb9f7c4bed765737adbb