I actually think that for a lot of software, AI can really help with that blind spot, even beyond regressions, in ways that don't replace human testers but are complementary.
For starters, not all software is used directly by humans. A good chunk was already consumed by APIs, and now an even larger chunk will be consumed by AIs. In those cases, it's very possible that AIs will be better at QA than humans, even for original problem discovery. After all, they are the users.
Even for human-facing CLIs (the kind of software I develop these days), it's trivially easy for AIs to interact with the software, and in my experience the newer models are shockingly good at understanding the principles and conventions of CLI usability, at least in the Unix world. I routinely run CLI changes through a gauntlet of AI agents, and their feedback is genuinely good.
TLDR I think in these debates over how automatable QA really is, we often tend to forget that there is a lot of software out there, and not all software is tested the same way.