There's certainly lots of cases of humans saving the day when computers would have failed. However, the trend is clear- the more airplanes get automated, the safer we are. Indeed, in the last decade there have been exactly two fatal accidents in the U.S, both due to human ineptitude (Colgan Air Flight 3407, Asiana Airlines Flight 214). To compare, in 1960 alone there were 4 planes destroyed in the U.S. killing hundreds. You really have to credit improved automation as there were plenty of really good WW2 pilots available in the 60s when thing were far more dangerous.
There's a lot of misconceptions about aviation and aviation accidents here. Let me address some of your points.
Yes, technology has made aircraft safer. The problem is that people are conflating technology with being the primary driver of safety, when there are a LOT of factors.
For instance, you have to keep in mind that those aircraft have gotten safer too with better pilot training (including requirements for certifications), better training simulators, better aerospace engineering (the 777 comes to mind), better techniques (Crew Resource Management aka CRM didn't come about until the last few decades), etc.
Those have all been huge drivers of safety. In fact, your example of WW2 pilots is wrong - in 1954 alone, a year of peace, the US Navy and Marines lost over 2 aircraft per day due Class A mishaps - and that was with a TON of WW2 vets still in the service. Today, fewer than 1 per month on average is lost - because a lot of these safety standards and better training have been implemented.
Also, the two crashes you have highlighted are examples of places where automation does not always exist for aircraft yet. In the case of Asiana Airlines Flight 214, yes it was pilot error - but it was on landing, for which not every aircraft is equipped (or airport equipped, for that matter) with an ILS CAT III to do automated landings.
In addition, the Colgan flight saw the autopilot disconnect on final approach because it could not figure out the issue with icing and why their indicated airspeed had dropped significantly. If you had left it to computers, the plane would have crashed anyways because it stopped flying it. The pilots did screw it up by bringing the plane into a stall - but had the pilots done the right thing, you never would have even heard of this flight and no one would be talking about this as a mishap caused by human error.
Eventually there comes a time when the money spent on human operators is better spent elsewhere. Arguably, we are already there in aviation. If you took all the money being paid to pilots in salary and training expenses, all the weight and fuel they and their cockpits add to each and every flight, and all the money saved from accidents they caused like the two above as well as GermanWings and Air France, all the money being spent on security to stop them from being manipulated, and funneled that money into finding and fixing the last few edge cases where humans outperform computers, we'd probably be safer.
No, we haven't gotten to that point - not at all. Planes still taxi, takeoff, and land under human control for the vast majority of flights out there - with landings only really coming due to near zero weather minima requiring an ILS CAT III.
Furthermore, you are entirely discounting the amount that has been put into aerospace engineering, pilot training, and other pieces that have come into the aviation industry (civilian and military) in the past few decades.
The over-reliance and trust in computers being the be-all end-all in this is frightening, even as an engineer with aviation experience - the decisions being championed are being made from an engineer's perspective and not from the crew members concerns, who are the end users of such craft and the ones who are going to have to face extremely complex and often compound emergencies that have historically shown computer failures at the worst times possible.