It would be an issue if they were lying about how often humans were needed, but as far as I can tell they’ve never claimed anything like the “100% success rate” stated in the OP’s post.
I do wonder why people automatically assume "AI" is "100% AI"?
Maybe we need to acclimatize. We all know when a company claims their soda is the tastiest or that their cars will make you cool, it's marketing fluff. Or that packaged food has to have some amount of preservatives. We should just assume that "AI" means "AI system", one that involves humans for software maintenance, taking care of edge-cases, and providing training inputs.
