The way I see it it happened this way. From the start, one assumed a psychopath was in some way "evil" and born that way. Then came the 70s, and everything was society's fault, so society must have created the psychopath that somehow got renamed sociopath.

After that, people used the concepts that were meant to be a replacement, side by side, since they thought they saw two kinds of antisocials. Those who were highly intelligent, with no obvious harmful background, planning and not especially impulsive, and hiding anger, and those with a poor or abusive background, often unintelligent and very impulsive, showing anger.

It seems now, those distinctions aren't especially productive, since people well can have traits from both brands. And from what we know today, psychopaths do have a brain that differs from "normals", that they can get worse by abuse and a good childhood can mitigate the psychopathic tendencies. So it is probably good to maybe not use two different terms. Many people want to keep the term psychopath, and I can see why they want to sort of out of diagnostic manuals, make it a subtype to antisocial personality, since you can be antisocial without being a psychopath.

Personally I understand why people want to do that, but also I think the word psychopath is a non word. The pure meaning of it is just a pathology of the psyche, meaning mentally ill. It is not very descriptive. I also think some other names from the past are quite bothersome, such as schizophrenia, meaning split mind which is not very accurate, and borderline, like between what and what?

The debate not concerning the OP, I leave to others,