As someone who's worked in heavy industry where automation has been slowly implemented more broadly to "be safer," a program is only as smart as it's dumbest developer, and a system is only as smart as its dumbest tech.

Often the safest system is the one that's simplest, most broadly understood, and has all it's variables easily assessed and directly observable. The only real advantage to highly automated systems are those that can operate entirely without human interaction, AND can be set to a state where there is 0 potential energy for maintenance. Both of those things are extremely difficult to achieve, and tend to make things complicated to the point of requiring more downtime, which still exposed operators to more risk than a simpler and easier to access system they're familiar with.

The way I think about it, if you want to die without being able to have any say in it and with the least moral culpability, automation is the way. But the true path towards harm reduction is simplifying use, broadening understanding of how to use it effectively, and reducing how many people have to actually interact with the system itself.