Yes, but every camera has a gray matter attached behind it
Apparently not it seems.
It's probably best to recap at this point.
I was covering an event for a couple of magazines back in July where there were numerous tractors and forage harvesters strutting their stuff. Also present were two colleagues working for other publications. We got talking to each other and we all despaired of the fact that AE was pretty blo*dy useless in our line of work as it was likely to deliver less than optimal results, quite a bit less on frequent occasions. It was not always wrong but certainly not consistent enough to trust.
The work entailed taking pictures of machines as they worked the harvesters and so our positions in relation to them changed constantly, if only to avoid having our legs chewed off!
Personally I have been taking pictures professionally for over 12 years with a variety of cameras and formats and I know the other two as competent photographers. Whatever tricks and settings I tried on the day the camera would deliver a variety of exposures, some of which were fine, some of which would be acceptable after adjustment but many were instantly deleted mainly because of gross under exposure.
If it were just me then perhaps we could settle on my stupidity but my experience was mirrored by two others who's work I respect, so it's either us poor lads in the field not having a clue or posters on here lacking in grey matter.
Take your pick!