Nothing about this is specific to commercial software. I've got 5 digits of hours in FOSS contributions.

> It was once expected to get training for a tool. But now the trend is for the tool to become a toy. Just play with it until you get light and sounds.

Your stance is pretty common among developers. The fact is that we use so much end-user-facing software for which we don't even think about the interfaces... we just accomplish whatever task you need the tool to accomplish and move on. Think about every phone app, screen, website, ordering system, electronic appliance-- all of those things have designed interfaces. Do you think it's reasonable to require customers to read instructions on using an ordering terminal at a quick serve restaurant? Their phone email app? Web browser? Messaging clients? If every one of those interfaces was assembled according to the developer's fancy rather than someone who knows how to utilize people's existing mental models and cultural understanding, well, that's a whole lot of "RTFM" time that would be better spent on actually getting something done. Most people will never read a single line of software documentation in their entire lives for the same reason they'll never need to learn how to use a Bobcat for yard work-- it's just not necessary for non-professional work. Developers have a fundamentally different perspective on software and it's not 'better.' Needing docs for basic application functionality is the right tool for some jobs, but not for most jobs.

> And for safety, we will reduce the set of actions you can take. Fine for a single purpose application, but not great when you want versatility.

You're conflating bad with intuitive with well-designed. An interface that doesn't let expert users work efficiently is a bad interface. Almost invariably when you see an interface that looks 'designed' but it's not functional, it's because a developer went looking for nifty UI mockups on Dribbbbbble and copied it so they could tell people about the beautiful interface they designed. They think that works because they think UI design is about aesthetics rather that making your interface as useful as possible. Great designs aren't even always intuitive to non-experts. Lots of times it has to be fast and efficient for people who know exactly what they're doing, and training might be appropriate for important, complex interfaces... but complex expert-targeted interfaces are not the same things as interfaces that are confusing because they were assembled rather than designed by someone who knows what they're doing. One of those things looks like the console for a modern X-Ray machine. The other looks like the interface for the Therac-25. I use vim (or, vim keybindings in other editors) these days because it's a great expert tool, and it's about as far from intuitive as you can get. If someone said "make an efficient text editor for people who will spend many thousands of hours at keyboards, there's a good chance interface designers would come up with something just like that, though probably with better visual cues.