If the tool automatically fixed it, you'd have a point, but most if not all of the static analysis tools I've come across simply point to the error and leave it up to the developer to fix, which is the right thing to do, reinforcing good habits.
If one's assumption is that because of a type system and other built-in protections a successful compile means no bugs, then that person is doomed to fail.
If the tool is "type checking" a computerised logic/type-checking will be far more efficient that mentally checking such a thing. Computer type-check logic is a superior form of a subset of "critical thinking".
Isn't that a strawman? Shouldn't we verify to what extent this mentality actually develops (I doubt it) rather than rebuild our methodologies around it - or at least begin by simply educating developers directly about the pitfalls of this assumption.
Sometimes it feels like treating developer flaws as unfixable constants that can only be handled by process change, as opposed to developer improvement. Perhaps a symptom of hiring the cheapest devs en-masse?..