Not a UX designer, but having supported systems for decades I don't agree with your statement. If you got the system down to a single button that said 'Do' the user would still somehow screw it up.

Wouldn't it be more likely the faulty machines are crashing pretty often.

Oh, don't worry, even before AI the companies in question were already outsourcing a lot of this to the cheapest companies they could find. We are just very very lucky most of the problems incurred get caught before being foisted on the wider world.

Theoretically I'd want a totally different model cross checking the work at some point, since much like an individual may have blind spots, so will a model.

>Doesn't it sound like the "right incantation"?

It sounds like you have a misunderstanding of what LLMs are/can do.

Imagine that you only get one first interaction with a person that you're having try to build something and you're trying to minimize the amount back and forth.

For humans this can be something like an instruction manual. If you've put together more than a few things you quickly realize that instruction manuals vary highly in quality, some will make your life much easier and other will leave you confused.

Lastly, (human) intent is a social construct. The more closely you're aligned with the entity in question the more it's apt to fully comprehend your intent. This is partially the reason why when you throw a project at workers in your office they tend to get it right, and when you throw it towards the overseas team you'll have to check in a lot more to ensure it's not going off the rails.

> when value Z is not >= X?

Is your AI not even doing try/catch statements, what century are you in?

Ya, a total guess on my part is the corporations are adding more things like complete drivers and kernel modules where individuals may be adding more smaller fixes.

>because in the end it carries strong anthropomorphic implications

I mean that is typical human ego at play. My dog is intelligent, and there is no system of definitions of intelligent that doesn't overlap humans and dogs. Yet I won't let my dog drive my car.

>People don't treat other people as omnipotent

Funny you mention God and this statement, because believing in any particular God that says they are omnipotent is believing that humans are, since you know humans made this crap up.

Given the opportunity a very large part of the population will quickly absolve themselves of any responsibility and put it on another human/system/made up entity.

We will never prove AI is intelligent.

We will only prove humans aren't.

And the machine came into existence all on its own did it? Another absolutely stupid comment.

Do you people actually 'think' before posting, or, have you handed that off to LLMs entirely?