This is true, and a good reason why automation is so valuable. It's not just the speed, but also the reproducibility. If the script goes wrong, it will go wrong

This is true, and a good reason why automation is so valuable. It's not just the speed, but also the reproducibility. If the script goes wrong, it will go wrong in a predictable way that can be investigated and debugged. If John goes wrong, he will go wrong sporadically and without any clear reason - maybe he was tired one day, or maybe he got an important phone call in the middle of the task another. With AI (or at least the versions of it that we're looking at today) we get the speed of a script with the "programmability" of a person, but the question still remains what sort of failure mode we can expect - predictable like a script, or unpredictable like a person. Right now, it's looking like LLM failures tend to be fairly unpredictable (in the sense that a prompt can give a good response one day and a bad one the next based on difficult-to-explain factors).