It's not about having to learn things; it's about the required methods of using the tool going directly against the grain of the way people in general operate.

The classic "you're holding it wrong" was about the iPhone 4: sure, people could learn to hold the iPhone in such a way that they didn't block the particular parts of the antenna that were (supposedly) the problem. But "holding an iPhone" is a fairly natural thing to do, and if the way that people are going to do it naturally doesn't allow its antenna to connect properly, then that's a technology problem, not a human problem.

If the selling point for AI is "you can just talk to it, and it will do stuff for you!" (which may or may not be yours, personally, but it is for a lot of people), then you have to be able to acknowledge that "describing a problem or desire using natural language" is something that humans already do naturally. Thus, if they have to learn to describe their problem in very specific ways in order to get the AI to do what they want, and most people are not doing that, then that's a failure of the technology.

For the specific case at hand, what's being described is similar to the problem of self-driving cars: you're selling the benefit as being the AI taking a lot of the work off your shoulders; all you have to do is constantly check its work just in case it makes a mistake. Which is something that we already know, empirically and with lots and lots of data, that humans are bad at.

Once again, it's a technology issue. Not a human issue.

> selling the benefit as being the AI taking a lot of the work off your shoulders; all you have to do is constantly check its work just in case it makes a mistake.

Cars can take you from place to place much faster than a horse can, all you have to do is learn to drive and constantly keep your hand on the wheel.

Part of using a technology is, well, learning how to use it. It's not the technology's fault that humans are lazy or not able to pay attention and crash.

You do not seem to be engaging in good faith: the GP explicitly discusses "self-driving cars", which come with an expectation that you still need to be "just checking they work well", and we have already seen people not do that, or be bad at it (if you have to jump in in an emergency, that's exactly when you want to have been part of getting to that point to react properly).

You are debating how people should behave, when the reality is that does not happen except for a minority — meaning everybody needs to live in this reality.

I know they said self driving cars, I am talking about manual cars, it's two different points even though both are analogies about cars. I am not debating how people should behave, I am debating their thought that technology should just work without any sort of instruction or learning and if it doesn't then it's a tech error not a human error. My point is that many technologies require learning how to use them, and therefore it sometimes is human error.

> I am debating their thought that technology should just work without any sort of instruction or learning

But since that was not, in fact, the point I was trying to make, and you keep trying to put it into my mouth, I don't think it's particularly productive trying to discuss this with you.

I am pointing out that your point, that tech should cater to how people generally operate, does not make much sense. It is flawed from the start, because people's general or natural operation can still be wrong and must be taught correctly, and that just because something is a natural operation does not mean it is how it should be. People have fundamentally flawed misconceptions all the time and it is foolish to cater to them, beyond improving UX where possible, but some things are simply not technologically possible to only improve via UX and not without teaching.

Very well then, O Fount Of All Wisdom About Humans, how does one go about teaching humans to operate self-driving cars that will drive for hours at a time with no problem, but 1% of the time will encounter an issue that the human needs to react to in under 3.5 seconds or crash and probably kill themselves and someone else?