Saying we can solve the fidelity problem is like Jules Verne in 1867 saying we could get to the moon with a cannon because of "what progress artillery science has made during the last few years".
Do rockets count as artillery science? The first rockets basically served the same purpose as artillery, and were operated by the same army groups. The innovation was to attach the propellant to the explosive charge and have it explode gradually rather than suddenly. Even the shape of a rocket is a refinement of the shape of an artillery shell.
Verne wasn't able to imagine artillery without the cannon barrel, but I'd argue he was right. It was basically "artillery science" that got humankind to the moon. The first "rocket artillery" were the V1 and V2 bombs. You could probably argue that the V1 wasn't really artillery, and that's fair, but also it wasn't what the moon missions were based on. The moon missions were a refinement of the V2, which was a warhead delivered by launching something on a ballistic path.
As for generative AI, it doesn't have zero fidelity, it just has relatively low fidelity. What makes that worse is that it's trained to sound extremely confident, so people trust it when they shouldn't.
Personally, I think it will take a very long time, if ever, before we get to the stage where "vibe coding" actually works well. OTOH, a more reasonable goal is a GenAI tool that you basically treat as an intern. You don't trust it, you expect it to do bone-headed things frequently, but sometimes it can do grunt work for you. As long as you carefully check over its work, it might save you some time/effort. But, I'm not sure if that can be done at a price that makes sense. So far the GenAI companies are setting fire to money in the hope that there will eventually be a workable business model.