> In fact, [writing] will introduce forgetfulness into the soul of those who learn it: they will not practice using their memory because they will put their trust in writing, which is external and depends on signs that belong to others, instead of trying to remember from the inside, completely on their own.

- attributed to Socrates by Plato. c.399-347 BCE. “Phaedrus.”

While likely not how it would be work out in practice, you would hope that with better tools would also come higher standards. If you expect more complex, more thorough, and/or less error-prone output from students using AI then you don’t necessarily have to lower how much critical and creative insight they need to have. Like the difference in a test that does and doesn’t allow calculators, you always have to fit the assignments to the tools that are used for them.

Definitely the second one

The scene from the film Idiocracy where the main character is being triaged in a doctor's office comes to mind.

The short story MANNA about AI directed folks and the future that creates comes to mind:

https://marshallbrain.com/manna1

As long as it pushes the students into mental effort I have no problem with changes in education. The world changes, it’s normal to have changes. But there’s nothing wrong to compare against prior models, sometimes we revisit abandoned ideas, artworks, models etc

Isn't the problem that kids (like all of us) are lazy and would rather use tools than their brain, rather than people trying to keep school "just like it was"?

That's how we teach today, but that doesn't mean it's the only way. As a counter example, in chess, AI makes a great learning partner, and from beginners to world champions the level of proficiency has increased immensely in the last 30 years due to better chess engines.