Well, given that all paper abstracts have to follow the same structure with the same keywords and be conservative to get a chance to get published, it makes sense that ChatGPT shines there.
IMHO, it says more about the manic habits of journal editors than anything else.
That's a feature, not a bug. It means that when you have 100 papers to check for applicability to something that you are researching you can do so in a minimum of time.
Not really IME; you have to go through layers of bullshit aiming at making the paper seems more important that it is, not hurting the feelings of Pr. Curmudgedon that could be a reviewer, fitting the grant that funded the paper, hiding the weak points of the study, adhering to the current Scientific Serious Professional Way Of Writing™, not disturbing the flawed, but socially accepted consensus in this particular field, ... and so on that are actually burying what should actually have been in the abstract.
IMHO, it says more about the manic habits of journal editors than anything else.