Totally agree with the criticism; I think it is a very misleading term.
It's machine-regurgitated texts stolen from people's work, and only putting up the appearance that the answers are logical and thoughtful.
It is a terrible flaw that from some point on even the programmers do not know anymore how the solutions/answers were created.
I appreciate that there are useful applications such as in medicine, where they seem to better detect cancers from pattern recognition, but there are always people involved in the further diagnostics.
There are also good uses for services / answers when people go on a website that has all the information (!!!) - councils, administrations, service providers - but they don't want to look for it, just have a quick question. Instead of making the pages more user-friendly and easier to navigate, they put a bot on top of it.
So I am torn about that, on one hand some information is difficult to find when people aren't experienced enough or maybe they work in a second or third language. On the other hand I think more efforts should be made to "upgrade" the user / educate people instead of spoon-feeding everything. It is important that people know how to navigate information, media and know how to learn instead of relying on bots.
My comment above that robots and AI replace people was meant in that they should replace them where it really helps instead of the easy stuff. For example in manufacturing, robot arms & robots are very helpful in lifting heavy parts that need to be assembled. They are also good in making sure that each part is assembled in the correct order and nothing is forgotten.
There are also great efforts made for using them more in farming and harvesting, for difficult backbreaking manual work and large areas.
In such an area, they are helpful, but I don't agree we should outsource our thinking.
The article I referred to was here btw:
techcrunch.com/2025/03/29/elon-musk-says-xai-acquired-x/