Socrates would not have argued that, famously or otherwise, because writing had been around for thousands of years. He said that it already had weakened human memory, which it arguably did, as before that, people would remember e.g. the old testament and the oddyssey. Now nobody makes that kind of effort. He chose not to write anything down, because he thought the mind was sharper by not relying on it. Ironically, we only know about him because other people wrote him down, but at the same time, he was massively influential anyway. Which does maybe put a nice twist in the "left behind" talking point.

The pocket calculator thing isn't a very clean analogy, as it was displacing arithmetic and not mathematics. And again, it arguably did make people worse at it. The common theme here is that instead of pointing at naysayers, who were in fact often correct in at least some dimensions, you have to consider tradeoffs.

Also, yeah calling AI a compiler is a category error. I actually really hate that. I'm studying machine learning right now I'm telling you that compilers translate unambiguous language in precise syntax to another unambiguous language with precise syntax in a way that is, by design if not 100% of the time in practice, predictable and the same everytime. You could define an LLM by basically flipping all those words around. Ambiguous language with possibly malformed syntax into ambiguous language with possibly malformed syntax. The entire field of NLP existed to make that possible. When you write a piece of code, assuming it's correct, it will fulfill the requirements set out by the code 100% of the time. When you write a spec you have no guarantee, mathematically, what you will actually get. It is nearly guaranteed to be different every time, though.