It helps to understand the context for when this was written. Before the personal computer revolution, most people didn't have access to a computer and only knew about them from depictions in popular culture, which depicted computers as all-known-all-seeing entities (think HAL from Space Odyssey 2001)

Because of these misconceptions, some people at the time would think of computers as devices that were (somehow) perfect and infallible.

It was very similar to how people view AI today: The way that AI is depicted in popular culture gives people an impression that AI is far more capable than it is. You only really get a good "feel" for what AI can do if you try it yourself. The main difference between AI and pre-personal computers is that basically everyone can use AI now.

Construction companies don’t shrug and blame the concrete. Or at least nowhere near as often as companies that employ software in their customer interactions.

I take your point, but the cement mix can absolutely have an impact on the integrity of the bridge structure. But to further your point, the cement mix was either incorrectly specified, or inadequately provided, and the responsibility for that falls on one of the humans in the loop.

We should keep tapping the sign as long as people are still using "computer says no; nothing can be done" as a serious argument.

In AI crap, I think this crops up as, giant company asks vendor, "Indemnify us against XYZ, but we also want to own everything." My dude, that's what owning the thing entails: taking liability for it.

The punchline will be that people will agree to whatever smoke and mirrors leads to sales.