For me that does not change anything really. I assert the trustworthyness of the webpage as usual.
My problem is the statement from chatgpt. I have seen it invent enough bullshit that if it was a person I would have labeled them as untrustworthy a long time ago. Yes yes, it's also amazing and all that jazz, but I still don't know how to trust a 'Chatgpt told me this' - quote.
I do get it. However it's hardly any different or less trustworthy than a random person making a random claim identical to what ChatGPT would say.
Of course a 'Chatgpt told me this' disclaimer does indicate something, i.e. either that person has no clue about the topic and is unable to verify the answer at least to some extent on their own and is just blindly copy pasting something and/or believes that anything LLMs say is inherently credible on its own without extra verification.
Then why even bother with the "I asked chatgpt"? Just cross reference the links and credit the original sources.
It just adds verbosity and doubt to the statement.
It's well known for making the stuff up because this is how it works
The Guardian found a article attributed to them, generated (not "written") by chatgpt.
A silly lawyer got into trouble trying to use chatgpt-generated precedences in court.
Everything chatgpt prints out is made up, and that includes links.
Seriously, heed the warning the company itself prominently prints I app and in the webui.
Chatgpt may print out mostly true made-up sentences, but by definition, because oh how it works, it doesn't generate truth. It generates tokens that make up words.
It can (and does actually) open and verify the links it provides so it's not as bad anymore, at least when it's using real existing articles/papers/etc. it find as sources inside its context.
