alt Hacker NewsI agree and have the same reaction, but I also wonder how long before we accept "ChatGPT" source like we do Wikipedia.
For ChatGpt answers we reasonably expect to cite actual sources rather than "Source: ChatGPT".
For Wikipedia, most of us just stop at "Source: Wikipedia".
Wikipedia is easily viewed by anyone, and their sources are right there for further verification.
“Source: ChatGPT” frequently doesn’t include the link to the original chat, so is hard to verify that is the actual output, and we all have experience with ChatGPT wholesale making up facts when it is led towards the conclusion, or just inventing facts and sources.
I personally treat ChatGPT “facts” like “facts” from Reddit or Meta. There might be a grain of truth in it, but treating it like an actual source is a fool’s game.