I've read this article before. Found it very reductionist. For example, it says that weapons might be good for Ukraine, but they're bad in general. You can't just "in general" something like weapons or AI. They have thousands of different contexts and use cases. Sure, a weapon can make somebody homocidal in one context, but it might make somebody a militia in another context. AI can be a slop generator for a vibe coder, and a bug detection tool for Linus Torvalds.

I'm not a fan of how modern politics and social justice is so reductionist nowadays. "One aspect of X is bad, so we must reject X altogether". Can we add even a little nuance to our discussions? This mindset is brainrot.

In other words, you found an article whose headline seems to make your point for you - which you probably didn't even read or you might have an actual answer. I did read it, and found the reasoning spurious, like jumping through a series of philosophical hoops to prove all taxes are illegal or that birds don't exist. The author's example of a Chinese dish with an unusually large amount of chopped peppers being more easily eaten with chopsticks than with a fork, could just as well have been a bowl of broth that's much easier to eat with a spoon than with chopsticks. All it demonstrates is that any tool can have appropriate and inappropriate use cases. They're still just tools.

intrinsically the more irresponsible

That doesn't claim it's intrinsically irresponsible. You can use AI responsibly

A tool is thus any kind of thing that lets you do something you wouldn't otherwise have been able to.

Immediately goes on to using a fork as an example. Wtf are you doing eating with a fork that you couldn't be doing with your bare fingers?

Argument is stupid, and falls apart at the first hint of critical thinking.