Seems to me the author can evaluate the information given by GBT too. It's not like a one shot affair, and I feel that assumption is more common than would be

Seems to me the author can evaluate the information given by GBT too. It's not like a one shot affair, and I feel that assumption is more common than would be generally useful. Consider (from my own use of GBT): Author queries Google, follows a few links, realizes they really need to take a step back and make new queries. Author queries ChatGPT and essentially short cuts past that initial Google learning step I just mentioned above and follows with a combination of chats and Google searches. End result is author ends up with a rough understanding and a set of information they can draw from and potentially continue to explore, depending on their needs. There is also running queries on say, Yandex, Google, DuckDuck to see what each returns. I do that frequently. ChatGPT mostly makes me a lot more productive. One can jump past that initial set of queries often necessary when jumping into unfamiliar territory. Evaluating ChatGPT info works the same as using search does! Like doing multiple searches with various terms, exclusions, quotes and such, using multiple prompts can be powerful. As others have said, the only real issue is trust. Did the author realize something to the degree needed to speak competently, or just take what they were given and run with it? These things being used like tools is no big deal. Like any good tool, there comes an obligation to use them correctly and with integrity.