With that argument you could say that everything humans ever did was for humans. So either it is a platitude or it is wrong.

You could say that, but my cat thinks you'd be wrong.

However, I'm yet to see my cat boot up the computer.

Ultimately pets are for humans, whatever you do for your cat you do for humans. The same logic works there.

With cats it's the other way round: the humans for cats.

And from a computers perspective all human work is ultimately for computers. Either making them or feeding them data. The purpose of the cat is to generate cat pictures for the computer etc.

My cat would often turn the computer on or the tv off, and I swear he did it on purpose because that's when he was complaining he didn't got enough attention.

My cat has turned off my computer on me - does that count?

You’re writing software for all of your future selves.

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/unix-koans/prodigy.html

Thank you for posting this. I feel understood.

But then we can also go the other way, and forget how crazy and diverse humans are. So you will still, eventually, end up facing the same challenge, framed differently.

Well, you could create software as art. Basically to create it for the fun of creating it, not to use it.

But yeah, the end result is useless then, and can be thrown out.

Or, like some art, of variable degrees of folks caring about it based on other interesting properties - and made for some purpose other than maintainability.

Demoscene, obfuscated coding contests, etc. seem to fall under that category.

Uselessness in the eye of the beholder or something like that.

But in those cases you are creating for other people. The point was made about software that didn't have any use for any people.

In those cases, only the creation itself has a use, not the end result. By definition.