I total weight of 11 pounds loaded is what I consider top weight to carry. I always like to carry my own rifle. So I would not be interested until they get the weight down.
As far as reliability is concerned, I'll wait and see, but I have no prejudice against an auto. The most dangerous thing on earth that can be hunted, by far, is man. I had no problem with autos for that purpose, so from the non-traditional side of things I see autos are the next step in the evolution of hunting arms. I prefer the old stuff, but that's just a personal preference. I don't try to justify my liking by telling others I have "the best" because of .... Blah blah blah..

In the late 1800s and into the turn of the century, the double rifle was considered "the best" for the hunting of dangerous game because springs breaking in firearms was not all that uncommon in that era, and a double was a single if something went wrong, whereas a single became a club.

By WW2 the M-1 Garand had proven to the arms industry that the overall reliability of a rifle was fine even if it was an auto loader. I remember reading in Hatcher's notebook (I think it was) about the test to destruction of an M-1. Fire it non-stop until it breaks. The bore and throat was worn out to a point that the bullet were striking sideways, and the gun was still going. Not only that, but it was going in a spray of water to keep it cool, but that water also washed off the lube. Lack of lube was not much of a problem. I can't remember how many thousands of rounds the M1 fired, but I am absolutely sure it was more than most doubles would fire with no breakage. The pile of brass was over 5 feet tall.

Enter the AK47 a decade later and the reliability went up even more. In fact, I'd bet the AKs are tied with any rifle ever made in history when it comes to reliability and that includes bolt actions.
To test a 10 Mausers against 10 AKs would be VERY expensive, and I doubt anyone has ever done it. But you'd have to take about 10 of each and shoot them until something broke and stopped the rifles from working in all 20 to get a realistic result from which you could make a solid conclusion.

Even the M16 (AR 15) is now quite reliable and if simply kept lubed every 500 rounds,(4 drops of oil) a good one often will fire 40,000 rounds with no jams and no breakages. In the start of the Vietnam War, I think no one would believe how reliable an M16 would someday be (and the AR15s too) but we have the evidence in front of us now, so there is no denying it anymore.

So at our current level of design, I am convinced that a good auto-loader is far more reliable than a traditional double.

Me.......I will still be using my flintlocks and my Mausers, Mannlicher and classic lever actions, because I like them more, but I will never try to tell someone that they are always going to be "better".

When they get an auto 458 to a boring degree of reliability (at least as good as a good M-1 Garand) and also get it down to 11 pounds or less I will pay attention. At 9.5 pounds I may really pay attention. But at 12-14 pounds I don't care if such a gun exists.

Heck........if weight were not important, we have auto-loading 50 BMGs now, and have had for years. Surly with a round or flat nose 750 grain, .510 or .512 solid bullet at 2800 FPS, we can't say it's not enough for dangerous game! But it's WAY to much to carry or swing easily on target. With iron sights they weigh 35-37 pounds. It's too heavy.

To me, so is a 14 pound gun, in any caliber! Once it's too heavy, heavier is not important, because --------------it's still too heavy. (huh,,,,,imagine that)

14 pounds is not as bad as the 50 BMG, but not good enough to get any interest from me. I'll be watching from the rear of this crowd.