>> This observation I don't really follow, I would say the bar to match human reasoning abilities is extremely high for exactly the reasons you described yourself.

Sorry I should've phrased it better. I was trying ti imply that just matching human reasoning abilities is indeed an undertaking of incomprehensible complexity, _and_yet_ it is still highly error prone. I believe a system that replaces humans will be under close scrutiny and just being at par won't be enough.