Why? Do you have different data or you just don’t like the numbers?

- https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/24/key-facts...

- https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/guns-an...

- https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2025001/article...

I fail to understand why you cited ChatGPT in the first comment instead of just linking the sources in the first place. That was obviously the critique of your comment, and it seems bad-faith to claim it was because they "just don't like the numbers".

I guess I was equally lazy as the people that need spoon feeding instead of doing their own research. I brought data to a comment that didn’t and didn’t think it was going to be too controversial. Nobody who complained brought any data; they just complained.

See Sealioning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

I agree and have the same reaction, but I also wonder how long before we accept "ChatGPT" source like we do Wikipedia.

For ChatGpt answers we reasonably expect to cite actual sources rather than "Source: ChatGPT".

For Wikipedia, most of us just stop at "Source: Wikipedia".

Wikipedia is easily viewed by anyone, and their sources are right there for further verification.

“Source: ChatGPT” frequently doesn’t include the link to the original chat, so is hard to verify that is the actual output, and we all have experience with ChatGPT wholesale making up facts when it is led towards the conclusion, or just inventing facts and sources.

I personally treat ChatGPT “facts” like “facts” from Reddit or Meta. There might be a grain of truth in it, but treating it like an actual source is a fool’s game.

I'm not most people. You spend enough time in the "talk" section and you realize that Wikipedia is every bit as vulnerable to propaganda as Facebook or Twitter.

It's decent enough for high level technical explanation, but anything opinionistic needs to follow the source trails.