Pretty interesting. It one-shots correct information with references and a further reading list 99% of the time for me.

I don't want it to fill in the gaps though, but make it reference anything and everything it brings, hence it doesn't hallucinate much.

If something feels off, I ask it to back it with concrete data, and if it can't, I don't consider that information correct. That happened once, though, and web doesn't have any information on that thing either. So in that case, not only it had no information on the web, the training data had no information on that thing either short of feeding confidential design documents if they were ever present in the first place.

The question was about an instrument preamp though, so nothing crucial.

I guess there's one thing that could really bias my anecdata: I almost exclusively use Gemini in a professional/niche domain and ChatGPT in a personal/idle curiosity context, so there's a chance that ChatGPT is just as wrong but I am not knowledgeable in a given domain to tell.