The MIT study was shared and discussed here several times, so I'll skip that part.
#1009140
#1009160 (hn comments are interesting, too)
I think there were more.
The main critique, here too, seems to be the choice in protocol to make such strong conclusions.
I do like the following points though.
To understand the current situation with AI, we can look back to what happened when calculators first became available.
Back in the 1970s, their impact was regulated by making exams much harder. Instead of doing calculations by hand, students were expected to use calculators and spend their cognitive efforts on more complex tasks.
Effectively, the bar was significantly raised, which made students work equally hard (if not harder) than before calculators were available.
The challenge with AI is that, for the most part, educators have not raised the bar in a way that makes AI a necessary part of the process. Educators still require students to complete the same tasks and expect the same standard of work as they did five years ago.
One probably only needs to ask our children for whom it is already part of their life and never knew anything else. Our worries and heeds must sound like my boomer aunt warning by parents for not letting me engage in pen and paper roleplaying games. It would trigger my primal instincts and turn me into a serial killer.