I am arguing that it should be given relatively high credence, not “trusted at face value”. Same as with Wikipedia, by the way.

I know you are, and I disagree. Your example of Wikipedia is a great differentiator.

The reason that Wikipedia is generally a good source is that it too cites its sources. If a Wikipedia entry makes a claim, I can see where that data came from or if its not cited, I know the claim is suspect and not to trust it. ChatGPT has none of that.

I am discussing topic with you. Would you rather me stating acts without any sources at all?

From my perspective not citing any source is exactly what you’re doing. ChatGPT isn’t a trusted or challenge-able source

And you can absolutely confirm the veracity (or not) of ChatGPT4 itself. You can ask the question yourself. You can collect statistics how likely it gives correct answers to similar questions, or find already published data about this topic.

If you want ChatGPT involved, that’s your job. Why is it you can’t use ChatGPT to find the real source which backs its claim?

Based on that you can calculate probability that the statement is true. And it is much higher than 50%.

"much higher that 50% is way way too low a bar to be considered a factual source.

In short, don’t attack the messenger, attack the message.

I can’t attack the message, its not backed by any sources to question it. My only option is to trust it absolutely, which is absurd.