I don't think anyone is arguing that the development of technology to protect against (the inevitable) pilot error is a bad thing, or that such technology hasn't added to safety. But the point being made about human error in engineering is more about the design of such systems and the ability of designers to foresee and cater for all necessary scenarios than it is about discrete failures. Just as system design can mitigate pilot error, some way of mitigating design errors or omissions will be needed for the foreseeable future.
Technology has smoothed out some forms of pilot error in recent decades, but it's simply wrong to attribute all of the improvements in safety to automation. Developments in the understanding of human factors, decision-making and error management have also played a significant part.
For an automated system to respond to an adverse situation, that system has to detect and 'understand' what is going on. Hence my example of the Nimrod ditching, a few posts back. For sure, technology will keep moving on; to compare an 'Airbus' (a simplistic term) with a 1970s car or phone is disingenuous. Even the A320 family has been developed over the years, and is now significantly different to the early versions under the skin. An A350 is a very different animal altogether.
Yes, current 'automated' aircraft are a very basic representation of what will be achievable in the future in engineering terms. But they are also a lens through which to view the fundamental issues of how to cater for human limitations in aerospace, whether on the part of 'pilots' or designers. Those limitations won't go away and nor will the commercial and business imperatives that limit development and testing time.
Haven't got time to delve further right now; gotta go supermarket shopping. Now that's something I'd like to automate...