Not exactly. Plato was against books because they made it too easy to remember information - people no longer had to memorize facts, because now they could be written down, forgotten, and read later to be relearned. So it was very much someone arguing against new technology making things too easy, and whittling away at humanity's ability to process and remember information, just like people arguing against AI today.

Ultimately, Plato was right that books made it harder for us to remember information, but the benefit of being able to share information so much more effectively outweighed that drawback, leading to books making people smarter overall even if they aren't as good at retaining that information. The same can't be said for AI, which further whittles away at our ability to retain information on top of limiting our ease of access to verifiably correct information, instead leading us toward assumptions and opinions, which is the real reason why this argument falls apart.

If you run under the presimise that anything Plato ever thought was strictly the opposite of true, then it follows.

It's a relatively common and flawed structure. People just usually say Hitler or Stalin or Obama or whatever.