I always think for pieces like these which claim atrophy, well yes , but what about the things that you would have never even tried without it. The barrier to many things isn't becoming lazy when you're already halfway proficient, it's getting started in the first place. AI lowers the getting started cost of almost everything exponentially.
If the argument is that people shouldn't be able to get started on those things without having to slog though a lot of mindless drudgework - then people should be honest about that rather than dress it up in analogies.
> but what about the things that you would have never even tried without it
The problem with that is that there's a lot of cases where a total newbie engaging with some subject could lead to problems. They have a false confidence in their abilities, while not knowing what they don't know.
What if you want to try chemistry and ask the AI about what you need to know. Since you don't know anything about chemistry you don't know if the answers are complete or correct. Because you don't know about chemistry you also don't know about the dangers you need to ask about, what prevention to take, etc.
The same could be said about many different subjects: rock-climbing, home-improvement, electrical work, car maintenance, etc.
You might argue then that it would still be perfect for low-risk subjects, but how would a total newbie be able to validly determine risks of anything they don't know anything about?
Sure, if someone’s first use case for AI is synthesising chlorine gas in their shed, that’s a separate issue.
Most of us are talking about writing, coding, or analysis, not hazardous materials though.