No.
We apologize that our original message was unclear and seemingly random. Our commentary on ableism and classism was relevant to the bullying dynamics we were seeing across our social channels. It was rooted in a desire to point out that, for people in certain circumstances, some forms of AI can be life-changing. In our revised statement about AI, we talk openly about how our decision to comment on our position about AI related to abusive behavior we were seeing.
We were by no means saying that we believe that differently-abled people "need" AI in order to write. We don't presume to know what anybody needs. Differently-abled people are not a monolith, and it is with trepidation that we even use that terminology (note: this is not terminology we used in our original statement).
What we were trying to say is that we could think of instances in which non-generative AI could serve the legitimate needs of a subset of writers who have physical or cognitive limitations. Our comments about possible legitimate uses of AI tools were driven by our understanding that not all brains, or bodies, work the same.
To be clear, we certainly don’t believe those with concerns about AI to be classist or ableist. Not being more careful about our wording was a bad decision on our part.