Consider for example something as familiar as coffee. It can stimulate you, but if you chronically over-consume it, it will inevitably ruin your sleep and make you more fatigued. This doesn't make coffee antithetical to energy.
A fairer title to an article would be "AI reshapes learning", but people prefer making bombastic, clickbait, and false claims instead.
Are you just reacting to the title? "Antithetical to learning" is an exaggeration, I think. But AI obviously has fundamentally changed learning. It makes active learning easier, but with some caveats about the nature of its output. On the flip side, it heavily reduces the passive learning that once happened while working. It pushes more responsibility onto people to take time to actively learn, while at the same time reducing concrete motivation to learn, which is a bad combo.
> This is the result of companies whose goals are not aligned with humans learning things, or humans staying engaged and in the loop. To motivate their astronomical valuations they need AI to replace everything else. It has to be used for everything. For these companies to ever become profitable all the software engineers in the world need to become dependent on their products. They want to be the landlord and for the rest of the world to pay them rent.
The simple fact is "Humans learning things" can't be put in an automated RL loop. This is not a conspiracy by the evil AI companies, it's a simple technical reason.
I don't think this brings your point across at all. If you disagree with the article, just saying "no, it's a tool, like coffee" does not meaningfully engage at all with any of the points made.
A gun is not a multi-purpose tool; it is a weapon. AI is a general-purpose tool, and not a weapon.
Edit: This was written in response to an earlier version of the parent post.