I don't think that works as a critique of LLMs because it's far too broadly applicable to well-accepted tools.

Are advanced calculators bad because a student could use the CAS to ace calculus homework, exams or the SAT without actually learning the material?

Is copy/paste bad because a person could use it to copy/paste code from one place to another without noticing some of the areas they need to update in the new location, adding bugs and missing a chance to learn some more subtleties of the system?

Is Git bad because a manager could use it to just measure performance by number of lines of code committed instead of doing more work to actually understand everyone's performance?

Many tools can be used lazily in ways that will directly work against a long term goal of improving knowledge and productivity.

> This is very much a "you're holding it wrong" response

This isn’t actually an argument for or against anything, I don’t know why people say this. It is entirely possible that people are using this brand new, historically unprecedented tool wrong.

Cars have been a huge success in spite of requiring people to learn a bunch of new things use them.

Maybe they are holding it wrong then. Like someone else said, people had to be taught how to drive a car and that cannot be in any sense said to be the car's fault.

Some people are lazy, plain and simple. If they want to blindly accept what the LLM tells them without critical analysis and review then that's on them.