>The point you're missing is it's not always right.

That was never their argument. And it's not cherry picking to make an argument that there's a definable of examples where it returns broadly consistent and accurate information that they invite anyone to test.

They're making a legitimate point and you're strawmanning it and randomly pointing to your own personal anecdotes, and I don't think you're paying attention to the qualifications they're making about what it's useful for.