The problem is in cases like this where "oversight" would have taken just as much time as not using the AI to begin with.
A lot of coders can save time with AI because oftentimes "checking the work" means running a function. You test it the same way you would had you written it yourself.
But with writing, "checking the work" means doing the research that you were trying to avoid by using an AI. In the example from the article, he tried to use the AI to extract and organize quotes. If he had used the AI to do that and then double checked that everything was extracted correctly, would any time or effort have been saved? For the same reasons, math teachers can grade their students' work much faster than English teachers, and hence they can provide students with many more graded assignments.
The people peddling AI have no interest in distinguishing between when it can usefully solve a problem and when it cannot. They pitch it as the solution to everything.