Look how many programs and features exist on Earth.
Project this forward to the worlds of 2050, 2076, 2126.
Your "understanding of what options are available at all" becomes moot when every program has so many options that you couldn't read them all in a lifetime even if that was all you did. Or when the answer is effectively "everything". Future programs will vibe single-use features like you make a disposable regex for every search. You don't cement xyz\d{3} into a feature, and you don't ask "show me all patterns I could search for".
At what point is "how to do it without their help" a strange thing to say? Select text and press Ctrl+B for bold, you reply "no I want to do it without the software's help". What? Typing [b][/b] markers, coding a function call, pointing to a bolded font - there's no world where you "do the bolding" and the computer "doesn't help". There is a submerged iceberg of bolding with a bit poking above the surface where you press Ctrl+B and feel you are doing meaningful work. Like the story of instant cake mix, it was a market flop until they removed powdered egg from it and turned it into "just add an egg" cake mix, which lets us feel like we are still cooking.
Why does Future Word need an "insert picture" feature? It can press enter a few times and display that picture of your dog in the gap, easy. If you had a personal assistant they would not have a please-call-my-partner-and-say-I-will-be-late-home "feature" and you wouldn't want to micromanage which cellular network and which audio codec was used, and you wouldn't say "I want to call my wife without the telephone's help". "Insert picture" doesn't need to be "a feature" any more than the regex "xyz\d{3}" needs to be "a feature". Future turbo-LLM has seen you write every document you've ever written, future Microsoft Word has been trained on every document ever uploaded to Office 365/SharePoint/OneDrive. Future computer tracks your typing when you pause for emphasis, or hears when you speak with emphasis, or the cameras observe as you scowl for emphasis. When you indicate the bit that you want emphasised, it puts bold markers on that bit, and you won't give a damn how - whether it put [b][/b] markers or whether it printed the document through a virtual fax machine, simulated a hand drawing more ink on the simulated print, virtually faxed that back to itself, ran OCR on the incoming fax, identified the added ink as the bolded font, and put
and a CSS stylesheet indicating the bold font.
> "Seach and chat-based UIs always assume you already have a perfectly thought-out plan what to do"
What? CLIs assume you have a perfectly thought-out plan, and understand the internals of the tool, all its options, and how they combine. You either type `fffmpeg --foo-transform --start-frame=234 --bounding-box=0,0-100,100 --option=reticulate-splines --reticulation-formula-bellard-optimal` or you get an error.
A GUI assumes you have a plan and you can find your way through the menus to find the foo-transform, then the popup dialog box will prompt you with textboxes, comboboxes, radio buttons, for the options, which you can set using your plan. You still need a plan but you don't need as much software internals.
Chat based UIs are even more of that; you type "I want it to look like an old photo" and it says "here I setup the foo transform for you with options that will make it sepia toned, here's preview, accept?".