> You’ve gone from extreme to another. From “it’s just a tool that be skillfully wielded” “to it’s an agent which do the task you gave it”.

I'm responding to your comment because I need your help in rephrasing my comment above to make my point more clear, because the way I wrote it obviously misled you.

No, I didn't say the extreme (what would the extreme even be?).

What I literally wrote down is what I said, which is that using anything (be it a tool that is not autonomous or a fully autonomous agent like a very smart, capable human being) requires skill.

Imagine you and I are working on a team project together. In majority of real-life situations I'm not just going to point at a writing with my fingers to you and from there you figure out what needs to get done and you would magically do it without any further feedback. That's not how anything remotely useful and productive in this world works.

What's more likely to happen is we have a conversation, figure out how to break the task down, together, how to coordinate, how to cooperate, and how to stitch our results back together to complete the job.

As you can see this requires skill at every point.

Hence, the point I was making is that the article is either clickbait or the author doesn't understand how the world works: anything remotely useful and productive in this world requires skill (be it the use of a dumb tool like a welding torch or cooperation, working with something as smart as a very capable autonomous agent or human being).