jgg215

One thing we have in pattern is rules specifically written to exclude auto-stabilzation systems such as this. As Tony points out, this current system is rather crude and limiting. However, if we accept it on that basis it will not be long before a stabilization system appears that will handle more channels, have a better interface, more resolution in the gains, much more sophistication in the control loops and cost a lot more.
Then later there will be systems that will allow you to do a slow roll by only moving the aileron stick, will automatically correct to a 175 meter track. You could also set up a plane with neutral stability and allow the control system to maintain tracking.

I don't see us painting ourselves into a corner by rejecting control feedback system in pattern. After all, they aren't allowed in IAC either - where there  is a lot more money, weight and space available for aerobatic stabilization systems. For pattern, I would say that these systems would kill pattern in the long run after creating a technology and cost runup.
Looking at it from the outside, I would say  the gyro systems in helicopters have expanded the scope of the possible. I see things today I thought were impossible with a helicopter and new maneuvers as well. Helicopters are inherently unstable beasties and always needed some help. Aircraft are not(or don't need to be). In pattern we would be doing the same maneuvers except computers would be handling a share of the workload.
I do see it as an excellent tool for teaching beginners. I do see it as similar to training wheels. But it should be the goal of every new pilot to wean himself off the stabilization system.  As we all know, it can get boring just flying around in a racetrack pattern at the local field and that is without a gyro system.
John