It's because of the mislabeling (and dare I say what almost smells to some probably like deceit, even if unknowing) involved, and the consequences of that. So

It's because of the mislabeling (and dare I say what almost smells to some probably like deceit, even if unknowing) involved, and the consequences of that. So one one level you have semantic purists. Obviously some of those are here. But on another level it's the broad (under- and mis-) understandings around the ML capabilities that now exist. Basically, the ML does not constitute nor embody "intelligence". Even if it can program software, make photos and video from prose, dictate and summarize audio, perform "business analysis", act as a therapist/friend, retrieve and distill "web search" results, translate languages, etc. Yes, it can feign intelligence. Really, really well. But the real critics in camp A are pointing out, that's just technology, that's not intelligence. And camp B may be saying in some capacity, as a corollary, it's important to not misunderstand or misuse this, because of hypothetical consequences C, D, or E. I won't defend any of these positions, here and now. I'm just answering the OP's question, "What drives this level of criticism?", in case they are not aware of these general positions and wish to explore them further.