No, that's not "in fairness", that's misunderstanding the entire problem.

Having worked 20 years in this field and managed a few projects, no, I wouldn't make a dozen mistakes, because I would refuse to take on work I can't responsibly do.

Invasive and risky work IS the thing I want to be working on because it's the place where I can be most valuable, but part of my value comes from asking the right people the right questions. If I'm working on something invasive and risky, I'm going to work directly with the people who wrote it, and only when THEY think I understand it well enough am I venturing in alone.

Absent access to the people who wrote the code, I'm going to start by writing tests around the code and spend a lot of time checking my initial assumptions upon reading the code, because I know that I don't know what I don't know.

Yeah, if I did foolishly just started making changes, I'd make mistakes but that's missing the point: a good senior engineer knows not to do that.

That's the failure point of AI: it's arrogant. It will provide you statements without any idea if they're true and make changes without any idea if they're correct. It will never tell you "I don't know how to do that" or even "I am not sure if this is correct". It just does the work with infinite confidence even when that confidence is not justified and often it will be just as hard to figure out if the AI's work is correct as it would be to do the work yourself.

> That's the failure point of AI: it's arrogant.

I agree with your take, but AI is exactly as arrogant as the human driving it.