You say you disagree, but then go on to spell out my position quite nicely. "For humans" implies a certain level of abstraction that quite often tends to be too abstract in exactly the way you describe. "We don't bother you with all the little details that the others make you handle!" frequently ignores the fact that those others make you specify all that stuff for a reason.

For example: "Do you want this database to be AP or CP?" "Don't pester me with the nitty gritty! I just want to store data." A "for humans" database that quietly made the choice for you would be very bad news if it later turns out to have chosen poorly for your own workload.

The first "for humans" thing I saw was Python's Requests library, and I think it earned the title. Having just built a web scraper on top of raw httplib a year earlier, I would have killed to have had Requests available. It's a great example of a project with a decent track record of mostly setting good defaults and letting devs concentrate on their parts of their projects. Since then, I have seen very few "for humans" projects that weren't so abstract as to become almost unusable. I mean, you could call MS Paint "Photoshop for humans", but that doesn't make it so.