They explicitly overlook the fact that the languages they are always citing are written in C/C++ and rely to an extreme degree on libraries written in C/C++ even when they manage to self-host the languages.
Well, Common Lisp mostly isn't (CLISP and ECL admittedly are, but they're merely convenient implementation options).
C++ meanwhile supports basically everything other modern languages provide.
I'm still waiting for a decent object system (at least on par with CLOS) and syntactic abstractions (having two very different languages in one - "runtime" language and "template" language - means not only code duplication but also room for errors and obviously twice the learning).
Low-end AI? Translating user requirements into working software that actually meets their needs is in the same part of the AI difficulty list as cold fusion and solving world hunger.
If you can actually interpret the business specs without a human putting them into a formal language, you don't need to translate them into computer logic at all. By then the AI can just execute them anyway.
The moment you need that intermediary step involving a human and a formalised representation.. we call that programming.
Evolution can happen but it is always devolution (things getting worse not better). Natural selection is the exact opposite of evolution. You may need to understand a little bit here such as evolution is the actual building or increasing of genetic information which is the opposite of natural selection which is the reduction of the genetic information or the selection of existing genetic information.
Look, just because it happened to you doesn't mean it happened to everyone else.
This is another socialist myth where people will gather an income for doing nothing.
That's not a socialist myth, that's just your misconception of the notion of socialism. Back in the 19th century, nobody conflated socialism with the notion of robotic utopia - there were no robots after all!
To err is human, to moo bovine.