First, I wonder about the value of the study about endoscopies. Comparing number of adenomas found before and after potential "de-skilling" with AI assumes the rate of adenomas is constant, which doesn't necessarily seem safe. Not sure if the issue is with the study or the summary, but measuring how well the population did compared to reference analyses seems like a much better study design and would give me more confidence that there had actually been a change in skill. I also wonder if the time allotted for reading was reduced or people felt more pressure when reading scans the old fashioned way since they were probably read quickly by the AI, that's a potential confounding factor.

Second, I'm not surprised you can find measurable de-skilling due to AI. But I bet you could find de-skilling related to spell checkers and calculators back in the day, but no one I know today suggests we shouldn't use word processors and ought to count on our fingers and toes or do long division. There's always a tradeoff around what skills and knowledge is genuinely important to be a domain expert and what we can outsource to technology. We're in a transitional phase right now not only because the tech is new but because it's changing so fast. In a few years, once we're further up the adoption curve and the pace has settled down in some domains, I bet we'll land on a way to use AI for coding and doctoring (or in some domain where AI progress has stabilized) that requires a combination of knowledge and skills but that we'll have gotten comfortable with people no longer needing to know or do things that today are considered core to the job.