The author is conflating chatGPT's plausible and believable answers for a statement of fact. This is a good example of how you can "lead" chatGPT to use intern

The author is conflating chatGPT's plausible and believable answers for a statement of fact. This is a good example of how you can "lead" chatGPT to use internally consistent logic to justify a fallacy. It's annoying when you are trying to research and this kind of thing happens. You really have to verify anything it generates.