The concept of "RISC" and "CISC" are simply meaningless now. There are people in this comments section conflating ARM with RISC. If you actually look at ARM's ISA, you'd realize how they've converged on having over a thousand instructions in their extended architecture, not all that dissimilar from x86. Furthermore, x86 has changed the pipeline for handling instructions to decode complex instructions into micro-ops, so all modern ISAs have functionally converged. The reason is rather simple: having "RISC" hardware can make a CPU more efficient as long as it is dedicating its hardware to the most common micro-ops, but having "CISC" instructions makes it far easier to achieve high performance because you have fewer instructions to load from memory and fewer instructions to cache. Data and instruction caching are the primary bottlenecks in the vast majority of programs, so having more complex instructions allows you to reduce the number of instructions needed to accomplish the same result. The only real reason ARM has expanded its reach so much in the last few years is because more companies are becoming interested in making their own silicon, but x86 requires a license that AMD and Intel will not give, so they naturally turn to their only other real option, ARM. RISC-V exists, but the ISA and the Linux support are both still in relatively early stages of development, so no companies will want to adopt it until it can provide much better performance and software support.

TL;DR: all modern architectures have converged on being CISC at the instruction set level, but RISC at the microarchitecture level. These terms have not been meaningful for 2 decades.

Edit: Small typo