I agree, but on the other hand, they may also ask less questions because they will rely more on AI, and they will not know when the AI's hallucinating until they've spent a considerable amount of time dealing with a wrong premise.

You'll have to refute a lot more bullshit AND at a later stage/time by Brandoloni's law.

How do you refute your manager? Not only are they now biased to the answer, but without their own aesthetic (experience), it will cost you double: once to try the AI solution, and then another to try your version.

Suppose you're wrong versus the machine; they will think you are less consistent, even though every problem context carries its own nuance.

Having to, in good faith, try both avenues every time sounds exhausting.

Absolutely no one said anything like that about Google. It was universally praised as being a better search engine than what came before it like Altavista

I don't think it's going to make anybody smarter, but they may seem smarter than they really are, and realistically some will be way more capable of accomplishing what they want to do.

The truly stupid will also seem smarter than they really are, just like anybody else, which is bound to fool more people than before.

And some dangerous people will use it to seem much less dangerous than they really are, when perhaps there is better-concealed escalation.

So if people are not careful, the upside of nobody getting any smarter may not be well-balanced against a downside that nobody knows how low it could go.