I'm wondering if this statement might be definitionally self-evident. In other words, the entire reason we write software is that it has value to ourselves and other humans - so we have to be involved in its specification. Computers do things faster, more accurately, and in some cases more creatively than human could. But in the end, what a computer produces is still for the benefit of humans and subject to all the human constraints. Aggregate human behavior determines if software is a success or not.
If software is about meeting human demands, humans will always write its requirements, by definition. If we build another machine like LLMs, well the design of those LLMs is subject to human demands. There is no point at which we can demand perfection but not be involved in its definition.
If software is about meeting human demands, humans will always write its requirements, by definition. If we build another machine like LLMs, well the design of those LLMs is subject to human demands. There is no point at which we can demand perfection but not be involved in its definition.