You're pointedly wondering if anti AI is a psyop to keep people from using it while we actively have people using it to push agendas. Simpler of two conspiracy theories.

So how do you know it's explanation of relativity is correct? With a library, you have a notion that there was review. With the traditional Internet research, you have multiple sources. With an LLM you have its unwavering confidence, and when you catch it being wrong a conciliation "you're totally right to push back on that".

The models are inherently biased to emulate the patterns in their training set. That leads to communicating like people do in the training set, which if they're including factual information means "stating facts" as a demeanor, regardless of accuracy.

the issues people have are just bugs that can and will be fixed

My program to climb a ladder to the moon is going great. Every day I'm buying new ladders, climbing higher, putting the new ladder on top of taller and taller buildings and my massive stack of ladders. My progress has been consistent, steady, and relentlessly forward, so there's no reason to think I'll ever hit a roadblock.

Training these models is incredibly expensive and it's far from clear that it's a financially viable venture.
The overt data processing requirements sets limits on what the minimum infrastructure requirements are.
The big names in the field are aggressively unprofitable.

There's this thing called an AI winter. After a big cycle of hype around AI, people get sick of it and others feel let down or disillusioned by the reality vs the implied benefits. Then the field collapses back to researchers and it repeats in 20-30 years.