The problem with the Chesterton Fence argument is that you can't argue against it. It's the most powerful appeal to unknown unknowns -- an appeal to those unknowns which were previously known, but have been lost probably because you're the kind of lowlife who doesn't respect your elders.
Hobart points out how, with AI, we are probably embarking on the fence-destroying business on a grand scale. Here's an examples he gives:
At this point an analog clock is a decorative statement rather than a useful tool, but it's still helpful to be able to understand what "eleven o'clock" means as an indicator of what direction to look in.
Other examples include teaching cursive handwriting helping students with fine motor skills and learning how to write strong prose usually coming from some amount of emotional maturity.
It's not that AI is robbing us of our humanity or that we all ought to be washing our clothes be hand (or writing our emails ourselves), but rather that we take for granted that many social norms use heuristics which are no longer useful in the age of AI -- and that we haven't even remotely begun to adapt to this yet.