all those words and not one concrete claim made. in other words, FUD. the whole point of the article.
It's so completely obvious, that anyone denying it has to be living in some kind rhetorical bubble.
It's truly a feature of 'online rhetoric' like HN/Reddit where people can consider these asymptotic postures and take themselves seriously.
We will use AI like you use plastics, cars, electricity, computers etc..
That's it.
I'm sure there were a few people who thought that 'hand writing machine instructions' was the 'one true way' of writing software, but hey, what would we call them in hindsight?
There are so many legitimate ways to be curmudgeon or wary of AI, but this reactionary stuff is anti-reason. It's not an argument, it's guttural, we should just ignore it.
People not using AI will be about as useful as those refusing to use e-mail or computers.
It's absurd.
AI may replace some cognitive activity, it also required cognitive intelligence to use 'slide rules' - which have been replaced and we have not looked bad.
It's not a bad rhetorical question - but it's moot in the face of the question of 'should we use it or not'.
It will do a lot of things for us - that part is inevitable and unavoidable.
We'll have plenty to think about.