How many times does the automation intervene because the pilot is not doing what the automation philosophy demands? It is probably under reported.
From my perspective the automation has lead to increased safety in the last decade and the odd exceptions do not invalidate this perception.
Most car enthusiasts have had to acknowledge that they can't repair an engine problem on the side of the road any longer due to the sheer amount of electronics under the bonnet (hood, for the cousins) even on my diesel *Trabant*. But, you have to admit, modern cars are incredibly reliable, so it is a worthwhile trade.
Obviously not a pilot. Of course cars, where electronics have improved engine performance and suspension has improved safety, can merely be pulled over and left to be fixed instead of tweaking the distributor of wiggling the plug leads.
Automation, in the context of handflying, doesn't intervene to save the flight. Far and away the biggest safety improvements have been with safety systems eg GPWS, TCAS and database Constant Descent approaches. These are not automation.
As for "not invalidating your perception", ask the victims of the Turkish 737 or Asiana 214 accidents about what they perceive automation and it's deleterious effect on the ability of pilots to actually fly.