I think part of the point of the article is that it also makes edge-cases more dangerous and catastrophic than if there was no autopilot at all. From the article:

>The argument for automation is that it frees up cognitive bandwidth. Fewer routine decisions means more headroom to think carefully about the ones that matter.

So if the expectation is that the human pilot is expected to pay attention to mitigate the dangerous edge cases "that matter", there is a contradiction: the tool that promises to free up the bandwidth for that attention creates a complacency that prevents that attention from being applied.

In other words, it makes the normal situations safer but the abnormal situations more dangerous.

> I don't think we believe that the automation makes the human operators safer, but that it is overall safer than the human operator alone.

If the automation is for the easy/routine stuff, then no. The automation doesn't work in exactly the most safety-critical situations, and then the human operator is thrust into fixing the situation without the full context.

Well, it's differently safer. It's impossible to make categorical statements of more or less safe with automation because it depends massively on the design.

ijterestingly, AI tools are improving code theoughput but also elevating catastrophic error rates.

even if the average rate goes up tor net benefit, are organizations prepared for increased carastrophic failures?