Ah, but don't forget that the rotors on a helicopter can be pitched (like wings). I'm not sure the rotors on this "drone" can do the same thing.
A helicopter can land with the engine out by using it's rotors like a wing essentially. If these rotors are fixed, then essentially it becomes a falling brick.
On the Volocopter, the 18 rotors are fixed pitch, but yeah, a couple of engine/rotor failures are no big deal. Beyond that, ballistic rescue parachute: autorotation is not an option.
AFAIK, helicopter's rotors cannot be used 'like a wing', that is, for gliding. They can be set to auto-rotate in the direction opposite to normal and thus slow down the descent (even a completely vertical descent) and provide some control during it.
I suspect that there can be a way to relatively passively control auto-rotation of drone-style rotors. Pitch control is much trickier. It's not unheard of (even model planes sometimes have variable-pitch propellers), but it would noticeably complicate the rotor, lowering its reliability. I suspect that a fixed-pitch rotor with an independent mechanical axis brake could be much more reliable with comparable efficiency.
Autorotation doesn't involve the rotor rotating in reverse. It involves changing the pitch of the blades so that an upward airflow keeps them moving while they generate some lift.
It's like a wing in the sense that it resembles the operation of an autogyro, which has an unpowered rotary wing.
Well that's true to some extent, although it remains to be seen how the motors they're using compare in reliability to an engine and conventional rotor system. Engines and rotors are pretty reliable when operated within specs.
In any case, the controller is probably going to be the bigger reliability factor here, and having more rotors doesn't help with that.
Reporting what actually went on is an act of creation. Any good story requires detective work, something that is based a lot on intuition, interpersonal communication, and lateral thinking. These skills are not easy to automate. Also, you'll never get the complete story, some guesswork and logic is required to fill in the holes and deliver a cohesive narrative. So in that sense you'd need quite the impressive program to uncover the truth behind, for example, watergate.
I am surely not one arguing robots, etc. can do a reporter's job better than a person. No, what I am arguing is this continued BS of who is creative is basically a "No True Scotsman" commentary.
On the other hand, I am very little impressed by the quality of what passes for journalism and am pretty confident that a computer could write much of what I see with better fact checking. Very much like CASE tools of old were used to write programs. At least a robot might be programmed with the courtesy to quote the whole thought and not make cuts that can be attacked or change the meaning.
As to the narrative, too many journalists write their articles as if they were pundits defending their beliefs and "trying to change the world". It is great to be engaging and write something that interests people, but leave the punditry for the political campaigns.
Maybe they're onto something.