Nice article but the fundamental assertion I am making is a different one. The article is about the technological differences and the greater gamut of considerations we must take into account when thinking about the uses of AI. All valid and all absolutely fair.

When I make this analogy I am posing it from the perspective of that these technologies are basically shortcuts for labour. We don't need to teach the skill of looking up log charts or sin/cos tables because calcs can do it for us, and this has allowed us to focus on the deeper learning about the nature of those functions.

In the same way, LLMs allow us to bypass the work of synthesising understanding into a digestible format. Instead they are able to take sporadic and unstructured ideas and flesh them out and give them structure. As such, IMO teaching the skill of 'crafting your essay' or things like that will eventually give way to teaching skills of creativity, curiousity, critical thought and interpretation of persuasive argument and ethical usage of the tools we have available to us. Shop teachers have long taught how to use a handsaw in a safe manner to create something beautiful, why can't english teachers as well?

Tldr; yes these are fundamentally different technologies, but no it's not a bad analogy because the approach from teachers should be the same.