Just "my hunch", but one I reflect on a lot these days.
But this incredibly hypothetical. A lot of software labor today revolving around manipulating the user rather than aiding them so where we'd go with "better" versions of this is hard to say.
Oh! I thought you were going to say "testing teams, design reviewers, trainers".
I'm not on-board with this "10-50x" claim for the amount of effort. I'd say maybe 3x the effort, given the developers have been well-trained, the methodology is sound, and the managers' focus is exclusively quality. That last item is one I've never experienced; the closest I came was on a banking project where the entire development team was subordinated to the Head of Testing.
Getting everybody (or even a minority of any sufficient size) to act in service to a single goal has been a problem for humanity ever since we first invented society.
Lately I feel like we have built a society with expansive software infrastructure, where that software is doomed to be crappy and inhumane because our society actually couldn't afford to build this quantity of software well.
So another hypothetical fantasy solution would be a lot less software, like being careful about where we used software, using it in fewer places, so that we could collectively afford to make that careful intentional software higher quality.
Certainly a society like that would look very different, both in terms of the outcome and in terms of a society that is capable of making and executing a decision to do that.