I do not think their assumptions for the baseline of the article are accurate:
The technology being discussed has no bearing on the attitudes or ideologies of the person holding it: use or non-use is ideologically neutral.
Why does use of a tool need to be ideologically neutral? Why draw this conclusion? Someone refusing to use a hammer would very clearly suggest some sort of ideology for why. In fact, entire religions refuse to use power tools for ideological reasons.
The technology being discussed can be effectively separated from the people using it: nothing can be inferred about a person from the technologies that they use.
You can infer a lot about the tools someone chooses to use.
The technology is used fully consciously: you are always fully aware that you are using a technology and have complete volitional freedom to use a different technology at any time.
I think this was more true prior to computers and the internet, but there are plenty of tools we use unwittingly. The freedom to use a different technology is always a physical possibility, but not always a practical one. If you had to drive a nail, and you had with you a hammer and a rock, you could choose to use the rock if you wanted.
The technology does not influence the kinds of things likely to be done with it: use of the technology doesn't tend to encourage one course of action over another ("guns don't kill people, people do").
Tools have an intended use. They 100% influence the kinds of things likely to be done with it. A hammer is likely to be use to drive nails. A gun is designed to kill. While the gun doesn't "kill people", it sure makes it a hell of a lot easier... because that's what it was designed to do. Just like a hammer makes it a lot easier to drive a nail.
The consequence of these statements being true is that the only valid criticism of a tool or technology becomes how well it performs the task that it's designed to perform. You cannot, for example, say that a tool teaches bad habits, because if it isn't explicitly a teaching tool what it teaches people becomes out-of-bounds for discussion.
The problem is they were never thought to be true. This is based on a false premise.
Tools absolutely do teach bad habits. Especially when you consider a cell phone a tool, or a computer a tool. We often are making a trade off using tools, but many times we consider those trade offs worth it.
If you have a power drill that dies, most people aren't grabbing a screwdriver and manually screwing in every screw for a wood working project. The pros of the power drill are the massive difference in speed, and removing the physical strain on your muscles and joints that can do serious damage over time. The major con is now you are beholden to a company to purchase a power tool from. If it's battery powered, you have to make sure you have their battery and their charger, and also have to purchase replacements if those ever die. Obviously the tradeoff is worth it to most with a power drill vs screwdriver (and nobody is considering using your bare hands), but there absolutely is a tradeoff and we can discuss that when discussing tools.
A common refrain when critiquing specific technologies in this way is that engineers will say that a given technology is "just a tool"
That is only if the critique about the technologies is about its morality.
When someone says "AI is just a tool" they are actually saying it can enable people to do very good or very bad things. People might respond with "AI is just a tool" if someone says AI is evil, because machine learning is not evil, it is a technology.
It's also worth noting, that just because it's a tool does not mean everyone should have access to it. There are plenty of tools that are restricted to specialists by law, or controlled more heavily. They are still tools, but they are tools that can cause a lot of harm if used incorrectly.
I did not read the entire article because it started off with these false premises. I also recognize that most people will not read everything I have written, and that's fine as well.