Much of what we are supposed to learn in a classroom is irrelevant and some of it is just down right wrong.
Getting the job will depend more upon the grade and the network then it does upon any one homework assignment...
Is it stupid to do something perfunctorily when there is no direct evidence that a huge time& effort investment is going to pay off?
If students' optimization function is getting hired, what happens to the quality of skill and knowledge of grads?
As far as we know there is no direct competitor in learning to doing it repeatedly, in different ways. Now whether a mixture of structured and truly unstructured learning is superior is another discussion.
I don't find the author's argument, that students who essentially skip learning via LLM could avoid fairly being labeled "stupid", particularly convincing.
Not that I think it to be a particularly useful label, but I don't find awareness of self-sabotage to preclude one from such a label.
This is similar to how I believe the label "smart" alone does not carry much use.