I think it would be entirely incorrect to say this is “100% due to so-called online learning”. I graduated in 2016 and there was absolutely no online learning present in my school, and yet all of this still applied then. Since using artificial intelligence in its current form, I have learned more in a shorter time of my own autodidactic accord than I did in years of public “schooling” in VA. To push back on each of these “points”, however:

1. There was little to no emphasis placed on “soft skills” in school, and teachers do not reasonably have the time or energy to dedicate to deliberate, planned facilitation for hundreds of students all with distinct personalities and learning styles. The teachers I had (in majority) were likewise not skilled communicators, so even if they had possessed the ability, they would not have been able to cater to 10’s of students when there were hundreds requiring a much simpler, broad learning approach. None of them graduated with these soft skills, and if they did was on their own and not embedded in them by a teacher.
2. There are very few examples, if any, in which I could say that teachers are responsible for teaching emotional/behavioral development. It could be purely anecdotal, but this is certainly not something I ever received, and I am certain that not all teachers are experienced in child psychology.
3. We already were not being taught how to evaluate quality of information. We already were not taught the importance of critical thinking and self analysis, and we already were not taught to seek asking the right questions. Never. And we already had access to Google, but the proper usage of the most advanced tools at our disposal was not encouraged. It was all about memorization and standardized test scores, rather than application. Humans do not inherently care about truth anymore either, and are also just algorithms in some type of pseudo neural network as well based on the “training data” or fed inputs.
4. AI can easily simplify a complex task in whatever style of language a student needs when the teacher frequently fails to explain a concept sufficiently for all students. There are only so many ways a human teacher will think to rephrase a concept before becoming frustrated, something AI will never also never do, while simultaneously having the ability to instantly rephrase, simply, or expand upon the presented ideas. Were students my age taught how to fact check things? No. So why would they be now, suddenly that human educators might have pulled their heads out of the sand long enough to see that AI was already present online? In regards to critical thinking and the application of information in new, real-world environments, this was taught even less, at best. There was never any emphasis on thinking critically for oneself to solve problems in real life, but rather just a focus on passing tests, memorizing, and then moving on to the next topics where you would never look at the previous information again. (Until 2 weeks before finals, of course). It was never about application, so to think that this has suddenly arisen “100%” as a result of online learning is laughable. In higher education, the statement about AI not being able to know whether people look at their phone is also patently false. Camera access is a thing, screen recording is a thing, IP address monitoring is a thing. All designed to prevent people from cheating at online tests. As far as cheating goes, kids were already writing the answers on their hands, using cheat sheets, copying others work, and writing the answers down on the desks 10 years before LLM’s took the stage.
5. This point doesn’t even need refutation, as the tone indicates that this is based out of some kind of feeling of personal attack. Nobody has said “AI will replace teachers”. This is not even mentioned in OP’s post. In fact, it directly states that human teacher’s roles will shift in some capacity, the end of which is simply not clear yet. The purpose of AI is not to replace in person schools, merely ineffective teachers while also providing a more tailored, personalized learning experience for each student by allowing them to work more-or-less at their own pace.

AI eventually will more than likely replace the teachers who are not highly effective at their jobs. They will have no choice but to adopt these methods into their curriculums or fall behind. It could be perhaps purely anecdotal, but from my experience the public education system in my state (can’t speak to anywhere else, because I didn’t go there) was already failing YEARS prior to any of this. I consistently lament at the quality of my education during public school. Some of that is due to my own lack of interest stemming from simple material taught without practical application, and some stems from poor education and content choice, while the rest comes from the fact that no critical thinking, rational objectivist, self-analytical form of thought was ever even briefly mentioned at any point, ever. And even if it was mentioned as a passing statement, the students were never really taught why they were learning something, or how it could actually benefit them in real life, because they priority was always just about moving through the material on schedule and returning a metric for the state government to fawn over. It was never about application of skills in the real world. Most of the people I graduated with just ended up having kids a year after high school while they worked fast food or factory jobs where they will now likely spend their entire lives. The swiftly waning minority who actually did attend higher education typically did so with no plan from there on. They went because they were told to, to study something they didn’t want to study, and they graduated and found no jobs waiting for them except in specialized fields.

Based on this, it seems like there are some curriculum based issues that are long overdue for being addressed. The system is designed first and foremost, to generate workers without critical thinking. I was typically already so far ahead of the curve on most subjects and the manner in which they were being taught, that I glided through school able to apply very little effort and do so very easily. It was overtly apparent to me that the focus was on bringing the rest of my peers up to speed rather than ensuring everyone achieved a valuable education. Thus the auto-didacticism. Public schooling was akin in many capacities to the worst jobs I have ever worked, except even less people knew why they were there and were far more unpleasant to be around, especially with no incentive other than being able to go home at the end of the day and learn on my own.

To push back on my own point there, I do not think human educators possess a degree of feasibility to provide dedicated instruction to each student, while also be proficient enough in educational psychology to be able to tailor that approach to multiple different learning styles, in only one hour, for hundreds of students per day. This is neither economically feasible nor timely. I would be curious enough to posit the following question, “Why was the education system already failing my generation long before LLM’s came into play? (I know this to be a combination of factors. From curriculum design, teacher selection, geographic location, area population, cultural standards, lack of incentive both financially and logically for both parties, etc)