I use AI myself every day. It is helpful for many purposes. I play to its strengths, but stay aware of its weaknesses. AI has no opinions. AI has no point of view. In my mind, this flatness limits what it can do for me. If language were just information to look up, it would be all I would need. But that is not what language is. Language is alive. AI is dead. AI does not have the capacity to write prose matching the skill or imagination of a good editor. It cannot write anything that "breathes". Also, it is not always right, even about verifiable facts. I have argued with it many times. On the other hand, it is fast. Unbelievably fast. If you want ten examples of sentences that use the word "curmudgeon", it will deliver in the blink of an eye.

That's exactly what an AI would say!

Yes, I agree, it’s faster, but I have always appreciated to get different answers , from different native, because most of the time , there is more than one answer possible.

I teach biology and chemistry as my main subjects, and I find it is getting FAR BETTER at 'getting the point' ! Once upon a time it would provide something rather off track, and full of errors. Now, as long as I feed it the level needed, exam board/syllabus/key stage/etc. ...it will provide some pretty impressive stuff. My only concern is... that... I get the feeling... that...er... it might be feeding me 'what I want to hear'! Does anyone else have the feeling that ChatGPT is not objective enough? It's odd to accuse a machine of being subjective... but it does seem to be fishing for what I want. !!!!

I get some weird grammar from ChatGPT. Generally it is very good. However, when I set tricky questions, ChatGPT gets muddled. But then I explain the mistake and Chat very quickly learns. In a few years it will be superb, I think.