The humans I did work with were very very bright. No software developer in my career ever needed more than a paragraph of JIRA ticket for the problem statement and they figured out domains that were not even theirs to being with without making any mistakes and rather not only identifying edge cases but sometimes actually improving the domain processes by suggesting what is wasteful and what can be done differently.
Seriously? I would like to remind you that every single mistake in history until the last couple of years has been made by humans.
And yes, there were always incompetent folks but those were steered by smarter ones to contain the damage.
Also worked with people who were frustrated that they had to force push git to "save" their changes. Honestly, a token-box I can just ignore, would be an upgrade over this half of the team.
Nevermind the fact that they are literally able to introspect human cognition and presumably find non verbal and non linear cognition modes.
Are they, though? Or are they just predicting their own performance (and an explanation of that performance) on input the same way they predict their response to that input?
Humans say a lot of biologically implausible things when asked why they did something.
Until LLM's I'd never in my life heard someone suggest we lock up the compiler when it goofs up and kills someone, but now because the compiler speaks English we suddenly want to let people use it as a get out of jail free card when they use it to harm others.
For e.g. ask any model "which class of problems and domains do you have a high error rate in?".
*For some definitions of individual agency. Incompatiblists not included.