I think you are wrong. If you don't modify the software then GPL compliance is not your job. If you modified the software AND you distribute it you need to have the modifications available somewhere so the users of the software can get them.
I mean I seen proprietary and open source software prompting a license popup or message so you are informed that this program offers no warranty etc , when you use a proprietary tool and lend your device to your friend do you also make the argument that your friend did not clicked the proprietary EULA or he did not read the MIT/BSD disclaimers and you first make them read those licenses/EULAs?
Open source software prompting a license popup is actually an anti-pattern, a common mistake. Open source software under a license like the GPL or MIT/BSD should never throw it in a click-through EULA in the installer, because those licenses are copyright licenses, and the disclaimers aren't legal requirements to use the software (you don't need to agree to them to use it, they are just legal boilerplate).
However, the AGPL is an EULA, so in fact it should be included in click-through screens in insallers, unlike every other open source license.
The AGPL doesn't require you to distribute modifications only if you distribute the software (that would be a copyright-based requirement and it's what the GPL does). It requires you to distribute modifications if you offer access to the software. That's a huge difference. And as I wrote in the other comment below, the interpretation of "making medications" is horrendously ambiguous, and can be interpreted in two way: in one way, the AGPL doesn't offer any protections over the GPL (so it's useless), and in the other way, every user of the software is using a "modified version" and thus required to offer it to any downstream users they provide access to the app to.
If you offer me access to the software doesn't this mean that I am a user of the software and I should be entitled to see the source code ?
My understanding is that AGPL solves a real problem, people modifying GPL software and using loopholes to not give the modifications back to the community, is there a better license that fixes same problem and offers the maximum rights to the users (not maximum power to the developers)
Locally running the software doesn't force any obligation upon you. Running a modified version of it that other end users interact with does. Before you engage in modifying the source code it behooves you to read the license to discover what you are allowed to do with it thus it needs to click through license at first run.
I mean I seen proprietary and open source software prompting a license popup or message so you are informed that this program offers no warranty etc , when you use a proprietary tool and lend your device to your friend do you also make the argument that your friend did not clicked the proprietary EULA or he did not read the MIT/BSD disclaimers and you first make them read those licenses/EULAs?