The biggest contradiction is between "some", "they" and "the majority of people". These are often not the same people. Talking about a nebulous group of people,

The biggest contradiction is between "some", "they" and "the majority of people". These are often not the same people. Talking about a nebulous group of people, or common sense, common advice, common knowledge is never concrete enough to build a good idea/theory about how some things work or do not. But, here are some of my views on the topic. - ChatGPT tends to please the prompter. If you ask it for philosophical content and start correcting it... it will yield to your views and make it so you are happy with what it tells you. Most philosophers I've read (few) would die on a hill with their idea and make their writing defend it from as many attacks as possible. What chat does is closer to what a salesman would do - tell you what to hear. If a human would do that to me I'd rarely consider it proof of learning/knowledge ability. - ChatGPT tends to write good sounding philosophy. Maybe philosophers are taking us for fools and they're also just writing word salad half the time that sounds smart for the rest of us. - ChatGPT tends to write good sounding philosophy/stories/sometimes code. Maybe it's just hard to differentiate knowledge from just semi-random-output.