Sorta? The backend specifically exists to be where state is persisted. And the validation of the data has to happen at the backend, even if you also repeat it at the front end.
You are correct that there can be more interactions on the frontend, but frontends were both faster and easier to deal with when they did not do all of this. For many internal tools, bouncing back the validation from the backend is also easier to understand than the validation that the website is providing.
I suspect it is a bit of a curve. Zero interaction on the front is not pleasant. All of the state replicated on the front is also not useful and likely to be more problematic.
That's how server-side interaction was in the early 00's with ASP.Net WebForms. This type of interaction is one of the things being proposed as opposed to client-side. And yeah, it definitely was a (very painful) thing. Server-driven Blazor has very similar (poor) behavior today. I know there's other frameworks that do similar things. Which really sucks if you have any latency or bandwidth issues.
Not that I like the idea of several MBs of JS being sent over the wire either... I know that is also a thing, not to mention poor state mgt, which is also a regular occurrence (most angular apps have many state bugs).
Personally, I'm not too bothered by client rendered/driven apps... They can often be split accordingly, and it's reasonable to stay under 500kb JS payload for a moderately sized web application. Not that everyone has as much awareness. I think of the browser as a thick-ish client toolkit as much as it is a rendering platform. That doesn't mean SPA is the right way for everything. I wouldn't do it for a mostly text content site (news, blog, etc). And most of my work is web based applications, not text driven content sites.
