In my experience with ChatGPT, it gets less wrong and more right than most humans, and it's able to find relationships among facts and concepts that are impossible with Wikipedia and Google.
It's extremely useful and powerful in its current form, in spite of its many limitations.
With other tools, we don't demand perfection to find them useful.
Just because a hammer sometimes misses the nail and puts a hole in the wall, just because Wikipedia sometimes gets vandalized with lies, doesn't mean hammers and Wikipedia aren't essential tools.
However, it provides an excellent opportunity for us mere humans to reflect upon the way we organize our society in regard to vital information processing. We are awfully bad at it. So bad actually, we can't even tell how it should be in the first place and are disturbed already by some piece of software telling nonsense.
They're turning the freakin' frogs gay!!!
And incidentally, it's the consequences of those errors that teach us not to repeat them... which is the same feedback loop we use to train AI in the first place!
Acquiring and vetting information is a task of crucial importance situated in between journalism and science. Just trawling the internet and autocompleting the acquired driftwood is a weird approach to begin with. Doing so without transparency in private companies is simply folly.