If similar studies are the same, then they suggest no such thing? They suggest that (that particular) AI is not very good at that task (in the hands of that particular cohort). As an analogy: imagine you see if 2 groups can actually start a vegetable garden. One is given gardening tools, the other are given licenses to the adobe suite. The first makes a better garden. Is this a good argument that the adobe suite causes people to be morons?

As quoted, I don't see a claim of injury. The headline implies injury imo.

(and now having looked at both studies; yeah, both are doing this bait+switch.)