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.

In Plato's time, people learned information primarily through verbal discussion, then shared it with their friends, family, and community to pass it on through the generations. Oral tradition was extremely important to their culture at the time because it was accessible to everyone, and required practice and recitation to ensure no details were left out. Not many people could read back then, and those who could might not be able to read at the level to understand more complex topics.

It was also thought that writing down information would give people an excuse to never properly learn or discuss it in the first place, therefore depriving society from the uninterrupted chain of gaining and passing on knowledge. Anyone who could read could find the information, but would they actually understand it? This is why public forums were so important back then; you needed a community to share and discuss knowledge so everyone could understand and learn from it.

Also, it was Socrates who hated writing and refused to document any of his philosophy teachings. The only reason we know he exists today is because Plato took extensive notes on the teachings of Socrates. If anyone was pro-book, it would've been Plato.