I disagree with the thread title. Stochastic parrots are here to stay, and they will only get cleverer and more expressive. But we do need to slot them into their proper place, so props to the OP for starting the thread.
Let’s compare AI generated content with Wikipedia, another source that isn’t 100% reliable. I say that when reasonable doubt collides with Wikipedia, reasonable doubt wins. But in my experience, Wikipedia’s accuracy is astonishingly high given the sourcing, but still falls short of being reliable for cases where errors have consequences. It provides a great starting point though, since you can trace the citations using varying amounts of effort.
ChatGPT is far less reliable than Wikipedia, the AP wires, or any actual citation. It’s not a cite insofar as it’s really not helpful evidence (even if accurate 1 time out of 12), and it shouldn’t be treated as a cite.
I’ve used AI on this message board a couple of times. Here I use AI to generate a list of possibly existing products, with the hopes that some of the names might jog people’s memories:
This commercial website assures me there are lots of free tools online… ChatGBT mentions MyRegistry, Giftster, Wishlistr, Wishpot, and Wishlistify. Maybe some of them exist. Does anyone have recent experience with this? I couldn’t find reviews from Wirecutter or PC Magazine. Is there a non-Amazon wishlist site out there somewhere? - #6 by Measure_for_Measure
More recently I posed a question and discussed my unsuccessful attempts to answer it (I eventually found a decent cite though):
In both cases I reported the results without using direct quotations of the AI results, which tend to mislead. That approach might be something to consider.
Or not. Criticisms of my judgment in those threads are welcome.