> The main point in my original reply was to question the point of software creation, if not to stand in for human capability, wholly or partially. I don't see people creating software explicitly to just let it gather dust for example, even though that happens very often.

Are you referring to the developer's/organization's motivations? Maybe this is a proximate-vs-ultimate-cause sort of thing, but people are also motivated to create software by a desire to express themselves, to win competitions, to stave off boredom, to commit crimes, to prove theorems, to earn money, to show off, to learn things, and so on.

I write software to automate away plenty of my own activities (and occasionally others' too), but even when counting things like test suites, build scripts, etc, I'd estimate that less than a third of the code I've written was because I sat down at the keyboard thinking "I want to replace a human capability".

> I don't think there's anything out there that a computer can do but humans can't do per se.

The first thing that comes to mind is complex calculations that need to happen within a certain time budget to be useful. Like, sure, I could "play GTA 5" by sending each of my inputs to a room full of mathematicians frantically doing calculations who then instruct artists how to paint the next frame to send back to me[0], but even if you could somehow get that to run at 1 frame per day, I'd argue that's not really "playing GTA 5" anymore (a core aspect of the game is reacting to things in real time). For a more tangible scenario, imagine trying to pilot a quadcopter by manually controlling each actuator individually (there's no way you could do that quickly/accurately enough to avoid crashing).

[0]: Also this is arguably still "a computer", just one with an unconventional architecture.