Are you demanding that I accept your opinion as fact?
I believe you are exaggerating to create an absurdity. An apples to apples comparison of the information the engineer has with PTC vs the information they have without PTC does not support the conclusion that their information with PTC is 100% bad. What I find is that one exchanges one set of problems (possible without PTC) for another set of problems (possible with PTC). And in my opinion (with no attempt ask you to see it as fact) the potential set of problems with PTC is smaller and less likely to occur. Feel free to agree with that opinion, or not.
The "without PTC" list includes the potential events PTC was designed to abate. Overspeed, disobeying signals, disobeying work zones, exceeding authority, loss of situational awareness. Things that could have been taken care of by simpler systems, but the railroads refused to comply with suggestions and ended up getting a mandate. When fully active PTC will abate those issues.
The "with PTC" list includes events PTC was not designed nor intended to abate. Grade crossing incidents, willful and careless disabling of safety systems, incorrect information entered into systems. PTC becomes one more thing that can be disabled by workers violating policies. But short of an intentional act, the list of common problems preventing safe train operation becomes shorter.
I don't believe PTC makes railroads less safe. There is a potential that people will read too much in to the word "positive" and become complacent. "The computer will save me." But the computer will also get you fired. PTC isn't auto-pilot, it is auto-conductor. Except there will be no hesitation by the computer to expose every violation detected.