So, this article actually disagrees with you, it lends you no credibility at all. You said in another comment that you have evidence, I’d love to see it.

But I’ll go ahead and warn you: if your evidence is just the existence of an SMS “advisor” chat bot, I’m going to be very rude and condescending, and continue to make fun of you, because that isn’t evidence of anybody being “replaced”.

Edit: for those following along, it’s even dumber than I thought. OP saw “SMS” and assumed it meant texting, when it really stands for School of Molecular Science

I don’t see how it would ever lend credibility to your claims when it doesn’t say the same thing you are saying. The closest thing the article says to what you’ve claimed is that it may be used as a tutor.