The human brain already automates the kinematics.
There isn't much upside to automation and a lot of downside because of the diverse instructions required.
https://www.komatsu.eu/en/Komatsu-Intelligent-Machine-Contro...
It's nowhere near autonomous, but it's several times faster than total manual control would be.
Not so much these days, but the general idea is correct.
Usually there are joysticks (one per hand) that provide control over one movement per axis. So for example the right hand joystick on a mini-excavator usually controls bucket curl (left/right) and boom movement (forward/back). Left hand does boom up/down and rotate left/right. There's an ISO standard for this UI. Old school tractor-loader-backhoe machines (what people in the US call "a backhoe") had one lever per cylinder, so more complicated to control and more levers. An old-style motor grader is the extreme example of lever confusion[1].
Operation of heavy machines relies (still) on the brain's capability to virtualize the movement of the machine in terms of the body's limbs. That's why you need some time training to become proficient. After a few hours you just think "I want the bucket over there" and your hands make the necessary movements without thinking.
There's already lots of automation available on high-end machines such as use of GPS to control cut/fill operations with bulldozers, and laser-transit-based automated dig depth control for excavators.
[1] https://www.cat.com/en_US/articles/for-owners/the-basics-of-...
If you're going to automate the kinematics, then you either need a manual override mode (which the operators will be unskilled with since it's seldom-used), or you need sensors and rules for the machine to know where it's not supposed to be (clearances around wires, other structures, etc) and that needs to be better than human operators currently do.
Those are theoretically possible, sure, but a valve-per-cylinder is really stinkin' reliable.