It's not that different to Wikipdia. Trust, but verify. It's usually correct, but regardless it's a useful starting point for a topic.

Wikipedia shows sources, does not hallucinate, and shows the same content to all the users (meaning that if there is a mistake, someone else can actually report it).

That is very different to me.

Those are accurate details, but if you zoom out they're still contextually very similar - a swathe of text on a subject written by someone (or something) you have no veritable trust in but is usually fairly accurate.

You should independently fact check either source. Wikipedia is slightly easier, but after you have a base subject matter understanding you should have the terminology to validate anyway.

I suspect you just don't like it, which is perfectly fine.

> Those are accurate details, but if you zoom out they're still contextually very similar

I cannot go against that. To me, the points I listed make them fundamentally different.

> I suspect you just don't like it, which is perfectly fine.

Because you don't understand why I see it as a problem that people don't make the difference between Wikipedia and ChatGPT does not necessarily mean that I am just making up arguments because I don't like it...

That's fair. I think we're arguing semantics here. Expanding my "you just don't like it" would be "you have immovable philosophical issues with one, ergo you won't pick it regardless of its accuracy". I didn't mean to imply you were just trying to be contrary - apologies if it came across that way.

I do like the ideals you have there, but I think for most people a tool is just a tool, and if it ms mostly accurate they're happy.

Because there are other ways (simple Google search, asking an EE friend, etc) of validating the answer. Often I'm looking to learn a concept so it isn't like I'm using it to solve a bunch of things. Just validate my learning. It is easily as good as having one of my EE friends explain the concept to me.