>

There might be a different type of a problem altogether.  When technology advances such that people can theoretically become much more productive, then this type of enhanced productivity will become more of the norm and would be expected of everyone.   So people might be expected to put forth 1 weeks of today's research/analysis/writing in couple of hours in the future with these new technology.  And it will be difficult for some people to adjust to this type of super productivity that is expected of everyone.  Instead of your boss wanting you to make a power point presentation file by end of the week, you might be expected to deliever 100 power point slides by couple of hours according to different styles.  And some of the super hard and smart workers will have 10-20 parallel AI's running doing different things at once, making everyone else look inefficient by comparison so people would have to adjust accordingly.  It is exhausting thinking about how busy people would need to multi-task with these tools.
/u/A-Delonix-Regia (OP) has awarded 6 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

The title of your view suggests that you AI would deter actual work. But then in the body of your view you state

[They] act as if they made it on their own when the actual work would take hours or even days.

If the end result is what the programmer, artist - whatever - desired, is that not actual work regardless of who or what did the work? For example, if a software engineer ends up with a working application exactly as they intended, then actual work has been done, and likely more quickly. It’s not skirting actual work, it’s using tools to work more efficiently.
However, there is the issue of authorship. Would it be sufficient to have a disclaimer stating that AI was used in the work? Maybe even list exactly what and where the AI did and what and where the human did? >

My biggest concern with these sorts of things is that students aren't learning how to solve problems anymore. These AIs are still designed by humans and have bias and fallibility. 
If students themselves don't learn the why and how, they're not going to recognize errors.
We already see this in engineering with Chegg. Students use it for homework and then kften struggle on tests. They haven't practiced working through problems.
In the real world in engineering you don't usually have a set problem with set inputs. You have to figure those out. Then you pick how to analyze that and whether the results make sense. 
If students become reliant on tools to do all of the actual problem solving,  it could lead to unintended consequences. It's why universities are so stringent about using calculators on exams and why you show your work. There are plenty of programs out there that can do all that for you, but you need to know they why and how to be effective and understanding and interpreting the results. 
If AI does everything, PE stamps become meaningless. Who's held to account when the bridge falls down? >

That’s not a problem with AI though. It’s a problem with academic dishonesty. There’s nothing preventing students from appropriately learning the material. >

Disagree. When grades are your end goal and your career is dictated by what job you're able to get and what salary, you're going to be motivated to keep those grades as high as possible.
If the single motivating factor was learning the material then you'd do that. But we reward right or wrong answers with a grade. If you were rewarded the same for struggling through the problem and getting the wrong answer people would be less likely to cheat.