I like her meta observation, that using ChatGPT for 2 years rots your brain so badly you somehow think it's a good idea to write an article like this, with your real name and professional/academic reputation attached to it, and get it published somewhere as high profile as Nature.
Someone on my Mastodon field commented that if they'd done that "you wouldn't be able to torture it out of me" and that they'd never admit it to anyone.
I feel that makes her point weaker. Because she is apart from that completely right: The work practice admitted to here is horrible. It likely includes leaking private emails to an US company and in every case meant the job of teaching and publishing wasn't don't properly, not even close.
How much are we willing to justify every wrong behaviour possible?
But your comment could equally be about the fact of using chatGPT in the first place for the job, that I wouldn't justify at all.
Or the user really was surprised that deleting all interactions meant deleting all interactions. Then your position is a bit more understandable, but even then - mistakes happen and an undo would still be good.