Though I think your first point is mostly semantics, I do it's ok if some things are expected to be memorized. What do you mean by:
Repetitive reading with no application intended just for memorization is a massive waste of time.
Is the class and test not the intended application? I bet most people who learn about DNA or Golgi bodies never apply that information outside of school. Most people who took an art history class had to learn about cubism and likely haven't uttered the word since. What about the difference between igneous and sedimentary rock? I think these classes are important, but you cannot expect people to have the time to build up an understanding of all of these subjects from first principles. At a certain point you have to memorize something. Even if you went to a volcano and watched the magma cool yourself, you'd still have to remember what the result is called. If a student can define a term and identify it in action when they see it, I don't think they need to have done any original research on it, and most coursework (lectures/videos/homework) gives them the tools to be able to define and identify it. It's about exposure and exploration, and for that kind of surface level understanding I think the coursework for most classes counts as sufficient "putting in the work".
What does useful mean in this context:
By all means use AI tools to do schoolworks if and when they're useful
My point is that they are not useful because they don't help you learn the material. What is the "valuable part of this"? It literally just does the work for them. AI repeatedly makes factual errors, so I wouldn't even trust it to rephrase something, much less teach it to me, especially when there are a lot of trustworthy educational tools and sites out there.