If you're extrapolating from a sample size of one massively disruptive workflow innovation, then of course, it's natural to assume if you've seen one you've seen them all.
That said, a few examples of disruptive workflow innovations from the past, from someone who was there at the time:
IDE's - gray beards didn't say they made you stupid, they said they didn't like them.
Memory managed languages - gray beards didn't say they made you stupid, they said they didn't like them.
Spell checkers and grammar assist - gray beards didn't say they made you stupid, they said they didn't like them.
Source control systems - gray beards didn't say they made you stupid, they said they loved the concept but they didn't like the one being used on the project (regardless of what it was).
Object oriented programming - gray beards didn't say they made you stupid, they immediately listed it as a skill on their resume.
GUI builders - gray beards didn't say they made you stupid, they actually liked them when they were new (there is probably one from a billion years ago they still think we should all be using today).
Digital readouts on machine tools (yes, massive disruptive workflow innovation) - gray beards didn't say they made you stupid, they said you should absolutely use them.
Calculators (when they were actually new) - gray beards didn't say they made you stupid, they competed to see who could use them the fastest (backlash against them came much, much later).
This one is different. Yes, you should absolutely use it, and yes, if you aren't careful, it risks making you stupid.