I think it's also worth saying something here in support of phone cameras...
Most current phone cameras have just one fixed lens, or at most (in just a few cases) two. Because of the tiny sensor, the focal length of those lenses to get the necessary field of view is very small, which means that even at a ast aperture of, say, f/2 or better, depth of field is considerable (hence why these lenses don't need an adjustable diaphragm). Plus, the typically wide angle lens and fast aperture allow a slow shutter speed for static subjects and, hence, a low ISO in anything but very poor light. Further still, the image processing software in the phone tends to be quite heavy on noise reduction and sharpening, and might contain clever stuff such as real-time HDR processing of multiple images (perhaps even without the user's knowledge).
For images viewed on large screens or printed at large sizes, the aggressive noise reduction and sharpening won't stand up to close scrutiny. But if they're viewed on a typical laptop or small home PC monitor from sensible viewing distances, perceptually they can look very good indeed - with very little (if any) post-processing by the "photographer" (I put that in quotes, as the phone's camera software is doing a huge amount of the work here).
To that end, if the phone camera's field of view works for you, your creative intent can be realised with the large depth of field and, if necessary, slow shutter speed required to keep ISO to the base level, and the viewing medium is a typical laptop or average (not large) PC display, then it can produce very appealing images. Indeed, there are some situations where the phone camera might even be considered an excellent (even an ideal) tool for a specific job.
But...
The moment you need more creative control - shallower depth of field, different fields of view, good performance at higher ISOs without losing too much detail, interfacing to external lighting etc. and a whole bunch of other creative elements, or if you want to display or print at larger sizes, the phone camera's images will very quickly betray their huge limitations.
I came to the smartphone game late in the day, kicking and screaming against the concept of anything beyond a device that allowed me to make phone calls and send texts
As a result, I have an inexpensive Blu Vivo 5R phone, which - as with even the cheapest smartphones - has a built-in camera... in this case, based on a reasonably capable (but by no means special) Sony 13MP sensor, with a wide angle fixed f/2 lens (I can't remember the focal length, but it has a wide field of view). In suitable lighting conditions and accepting limited creative capability and intent, it produces photos that look rather good on a 17" FHD laptop monitor, even at full screen reproduction... perceptually, at least... and often that's what counts for casual viewing. But zoom into those at 1:1 reproduction and they're actually quite horrifying in terms of the detail smudging, noise reduction and over-sharpening. For casual use on web pages, though, they'd look very good...
We can do all the same processing as a phone camera with our DSLR / mirrorless camera images using post-processing software to get the same "phone camera look" at relevant sizes. But the processing in the camera's JPEG engine, and in post-processing software, is much gentler by default...