I do agree with that. What I'm seeing (and building for myself) really boils down to 'for anything I am remotely uncomfortable trusting the AIs with, I trust th

I do agree with that. What I'm seeing (and building for myself) really boils down to 'for anything I am remotely uncomfortable trusting the AIs with, I trust them enough to conveniently present me the action or actions they want to take, and I trust myself enough to build a UI that doesn't make it too easy for me to lazily or accidentally click yes on a hallucinated 5000 dollar expense. The fact that such an AI, with sufficient development, even given what we have now, could present everything on a silver platter up to the execution of the /exact/ commands, and this alone is incredibly useful and can save a lot of time/expense/effort. The crucial bit is that with, say, a human personal assistant, even if they say they will do exactly what you tell them to do, it's still ultimately inexact. But with an AI, it's trivial to 'decorate' a structured 'command object' (as json, xml, whatever) and from that moment let the deterministic system take over. If anything, we sometimes want an actual human to /not/ deterministically execute /exactly/ what we tell them to, because perhaps they might know we were angry, drunk, or they just heard something on the news that should invalidate our request. Either way, my point is that this distinction between 'doing research' and 'doing a thing' is not so dichotomous. In practice, I suspect all but the most autonomously-minded people, and especially non-IT folk, given enough sense of control over the confirmation of potentially 'fuzzy' actions, are happy with an AI doing a ton of stuff for them.