The correct distinction is: if you can't do something without the agent, then you can't do it.

The problem that the author describes is real. I have run into it hundreds of times now. I will know how to do something, I tell AI to do it, the AI does not actually know how to do it at a fundamental level and will create fake tests to prove that it is done, and you check the work and it is wrong.

You can describe to the AI to do X at a very high-level but if you don't know how to check the outcome then the AI isn't going to be useful.

The story about the cook is 100% right. McDonald's doesn't have "chefs", they have factory workers who assemble food. The argument with AI is that working in McDonald's means you are able to cook food as well as the best chef.

The issue with hiring is that companies won't be able to distinguish between AI-driven humans and people with knowledge until it is too late.

If you have knowledge and are using AI tools correctly (i.e. not trying to zero-shot work) then it is a huge multiplier. That the industry is moving towards agent-driven workflows indicates that the AI business is about selling fake expertise to the incompetent.