In other words, everyone should assume that it's lying at all times. Nobody should be using a product that both lies to you and then lies to you about the fact that it's lying to you.
Determining truth is not in the wheelhouse of a language learning model and it is not defective for not doing so in the same way a tablesaw is not defective for not driving nails. Adjust your expectations accordingly.
The points of this thread are 1) this is a dramatic understatement; ChatGPT's output is not just occasionally incorrect, but usually incorrect in some dimension, and 2) in the absence of any fine-grained confidence value for individual statements, you must pessimistically assume that all statements are incorrect until proven otherwise, which dramatically reduces the utility of the tool compared to how its fanboys portray it as the second coming of Christ.
You and the author of this article are making this false dichotomy where there is no middle ground between "usually incorrect" (which is hyperbolic nonsense and trivially falsified by five minutes of using it), and "always correct" (which even your straw "fanboys" have not done to my knowledge), and then using this dichotomy to set up another one to pretend that the only way to act on information read from a computer screen is either uncritical acceptance or presume that it's bullshit.
Neither of these models are accurate and neither of them have any relation to how people in the real world generally interact with information online or with ChatGPT.
Furthermore, your insistence on "labeling falsehoods" is not something we can do accurately anyways, let alone in the context of a language model which has no concept of truth or falsehood in the first place! You are asking for something completely unreasonable and I can't tell if you're doing it out of ignorance or bad faith.
It's the user's responsibility to verify truth. This was trained on the internet and everyone knows not to believe everything you see on the internet. This isn't any different.
For a lot of people it's a faster way to google something you're familiar with, a more convenient stackoverflow.
When used right its hallucinations don't matter, and the user takes advantage of producing things quickly that would have been tedious to write manually. Like one-off shell scripts.
If your use case necessitates truth then I see why you don't think it's worth paying for.
However this is the only digital product I'm paying a subscription for. It's faster than googling and trudging between useless results, ads, and useless blog content, so it's worth every cent.