I've used Claude and ChatGPT. Of the two I prefer Claude for bouncing ideas off of because it's better at asking questions, but I like ChatGPT for search-like questions because it's better at citing sources when asked.

I've also used both platforms for deep, open ended conversations about things I'm interested in that I have no peers to discuss with. Neither platform is a very good substitute for another human, even with the collected knowledge of the public internet. What ends up happening is that the tend to skew very sycophantic but also oddly contrarian and if you spend enough time chatting with them you'll notice patterns in the way they construct messages. For example ChatGPT often uses rhetorical reframing (it's not X, it's Y), which is one of those once you see it you can't unsee it sort of things.

As a replacement for other humans it leaves a lot to be desired. As they don't have motivations or desires or interest you miss out a lot on what makes human to human interaction so compelling. The AI will never steer the conversation into an interest of their own or talk to you about things you hadn't considered before (unless you're asking it about a topic you aren't very familiar with).

You're not really missing out on anything by not using it and in fact until the technology is better understood and polished it might still be worth avoiding, especially if your first instinct is to use it as social interaction replacement.