Illustrative image: Unsplash
Why criticism of ChatGPT overlooks concrete evidence of social use
In recent months, it has become increasingly common to see critiques labeling ChatGPT as an “overhyped” tool.
An article by Geoffrey A. Fowler, recently published in The Washington Post, fits into this debate and raises legitimate questions about the limits, risks, and expectations surrounding artificial intelligence.
The debate is necessary. What cannot be ignored, however, is a simple and verifiable fact: the widespread and sustained adoption of a technology rarely occurs without concrete utility.
ChatGPT did not achieve global relevance by chance, trendiness, or collective illusion. Its popularity stems from everyday use by millions of people in fields such as journalism, education, small business, research, technology, and civic life. It is a tool that integrates information, organizes reasoning, and translates complexity into accessible language.
A common mistake in critiques of language models is to evaluate them as substitutes for specialized tools. They are not. ChatGPT functions as an interpretive layer, assisting human thinking rather than eliminating it. It does not compete with technical software; it connects forms of knowledge.
We live in an era in which problems are increasingly interdisciplinary. In this context, the ability to synthesize, integrate, and support decision-making becomes central. It is precisely at this point that tools like ChatGPT demonstrate their value.
I write as an independent journalist and a professional who uses this technology in real-world contexts. The gains are measurable: time savings, greater argumentative clarity, and better-informed decisions. This is not naïve enthusiasm, but practical observation.
Historically, constructive progress does not arise from amplifying divisions, but from the capacity of lucid minds to foster convergence and circumscribe disagreements—especially when moral responsibility and collective benefit are at stake.
Criticism is healthy when it guides improvement. It becomes sterile when it ignores empirical evidence. ChatGPT’s popularity is not an emotional argument; it is a social fact. And facts, when persistent, deserve to be understood—not dismissed.