Political? Remote control? What are we talking about, now? Okay, I see where it can get political rather quickly and easily, if we choose to steer the conversation that way. "For quite a while to come" can fall short of the end of Humans blowing stuff up, and I thought the default assumption is that most nations will be interested in needing fewer soldiers as well as might:money efficiency, with exceptions and reasons for them being a topic to fence off and avoid. Bleargh.
I thought I was bringing up a subtopic of technical feasibility revolving around things like our bodies' physiologically possible tolerances for acceleration, temperature changes, ionising radiation, life-support requirements, etc. etc. etc. as well as performance limitations like reaction time, inability to keep track of dozens or hundreds of targets, our innate distaste (in most of us, anyway) for "directly" killing members of our own species, lucidity being sensitive to emotions, etc. etc. etc. What I meant was simply that there are gobs and gobs of stuff that can be improved upon, so some one is going to try to make those improvements, so every one who needs to keep up with military technology must follow suit in order to remain competitive. Gunner also brings up a good point IMO re: the costs of training personnel, and of finding suitable candidates in the first place.
Popular fiction is rich with depictions of _autonomous_ systems other than humans being hilariously easy to steal by handwaving "hacking." If I have the resources to build a competent soldier AI but have to use delicate, slow humans instead because you have the information supremacy to threaten my systems security on such a basic level, I've already lost the battle. With that kind of threat capability, targeting my weapons rather than my infrastructure is rather silly, aff?
Back onto another topic brought up in the OP, and which I suspect is not getting as much attention as that poster would like, both Science Fiction and "softer" fantasy have foreshadowed reality, but those hits are vastly outnumbered by the misses. Some are prediction, where the author either sees something coming by rational foresight or guesses it by blind luck. Some are inspiration, where we make something real because enough of us think it worth realising, and it just turns out to be possible and within our power. I expect that "Soft Science Fiction," especially when its whole existence is to serve as a backdrop for a game the whole point of which is "cool" entertainment, is not particularly rich in those hits. That's just the way I like it, too; like VanVelding said, there's a lot of serious things in the world that some of us like to take a break from once in a while, and a proudly unrealistic setting suits that.