Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

......
1. reduced weight - get rid of superfluous mechanical/hydraulics
We operate just fine with the existing "6-pack", radios, transponder,
etc. Nothing will be gained by a few onces of weight reduction.

2. greater efficiency (computers compute things humans prefer not)
How do you meansure "efficiency"? What things need to be computed that
a human looking at standard flight indicators can't do?

3. cost (software controls have essentially zero material incremental
cost)
Using the word "cost" in a discussion of flying is absurd.

4. finer control (the control theorists would have fun in this arear)
"Finer Control" ? What does this mean? How is it measured? Compare
to standard flight instruments?

5. clearer self-diagonsis (devices tell you when they are sick, the
precise moment when they got sick [with ambient data], to what extent
they are sick, and effect on the aircraft performance);
The simple flight instruments are expected to fail, but very rarely.
Pilots are trained to cross-check among instruments and are required do
demonstrate their ability to function with failing instruments.

6. safety (aircraft could actually monitor weather in real time and
advise - "rate of decrease in atmospheric pressure is extreme - use
caution" "conditions are prime for icing.." etc.
If this were to be a problem, I would not conduct the flight.

7. safety - "heavy aircraft heading relative (20, 110, 7) at relative
(8000, 400, 1400) proceed with caution"
Again, the NOTAMS will advise me of flight conditions. I don't need a
computer to tell me.

There are so many things that one could code in software that would
make the flying experience more rewarding. I've never flown, but I
imagine that it takese focus and concentration.
My adivse it to get a private pilot license so you understand the
issues. You have a solution in search of a problem.

But you're right: For all the fancy gadgetry, a 777 will still glide
down from 30,000 ft using 100-year-old technology.
Actually, it's much older than that.