It may work well for them, but is it replicable? Or is it a lottery winner trying to reverse explain the win?
For a tool to be deemed useful, the benefits needs to be generally applicable while the cons needs to be accidental or be reduced enough to not be immediately harmful.
It's just one person's story, though a dramatic one. But I think it puts us back at square one: "sometimes it's good and sometimes it's bad."
There would need to be a lot of studies to show the overall impact. The people dwelling on the harms of AI aren't doing that.