There are some points where I disagree with that argument. It comes down to where you draw the line on human effort.
You're basically saying that hammering a nail with a regular hammer and hammering it with a power tool aren't the same act. Let me put it this way. I don't like fully AI generated writing either. But if I read something and can see traces that a human wrote the first draft and then refined it, then I don't really care if AI was involved.
It's just a question of where the effort is placed. And the real key is whether the right "keywords" are there or not. If you've actually used AI, you'll know that it's a layering tool. The output varies a lot depending on the layers of input you give it. No matter how much I prompt it about functional programming, I'm not going to get results that are deep or particularly good. This piece seems like someone put a fair amount of care into it, but I guess you see it differently.
Honestly, if the people who taught me or explained things to me had written at this level, I might agree with you. But most of the professors and people I've encountered didn't write this well this easily.
I have used AI fairly extensively to help me summarise info, or to explore topics I'm not familar with. But I don't use AI text directly in anything I write for consumption by other humans.
Aside from the fact you automatically reduce your audience, as there's lots of people who will be immediately turned off, I want to speak, not have a machine speak for me.
To take your hammer analogy, i will always use the hammer to hit the nail, but I might use a machine to help find a good place for the nail!