It’s just parroting the current trope.

Last year it was, “AI is just a stochastic parrot.”

This year it’s, “AI can write the code, but a human still has to review it!” (Using AI, of course.)

Give it another year and the narrative will be: “Only AI is capable of reviewing code, and only AI can review the AI’s review. Humans just need to read the AI’s final opinion so they still have meaningful oversight.”

The goalposts keep moving. The certainty never does.

The regress ends somewhere, because (barring some pretty sharp changes to the way the law works basically everywhere) ultimately someone has to certify the outcomes as acceptable. This might be in the form of the market (though AI-adjacent stuff seems extremely prone to prolonged market failures), this might be regulatory in nature. This might be the executive management of the companies involved.

Personally I think that if you cranked the capability up high enough the first person you'd run into who absolutely demanded more than vibes and didn't care about your singularity thesis would be the representative of a reinsurance firm: mostly to do serious stuff without bending the law, you need insurance, and I am unaware of anyone writing serious policies (certainly not ones that make any economic sense) that underwrite the risk of AI autonomy outcomes financially.

When Swiss Re writes a policy that Anthropic Cinematic Universe or whatever iteration we're on won't fuck it up?

Now maybe we're talking. Until then you ask three practitioners and get nine answers, no one knows what they're talking about unless they're doing a really good job keeping it quiet (and that's probably what you'd do!).