I don't see how making ChatGPT write a dissertation for every silly question would be an improvement. The user wanted a quick, rough answer that would give him some perspective on the energy need of humans - and he got it. It's unlikely that someone who asks that question actually wants that degree of rigor - and if they did, then they would specifically ask for it.

Conciseness matters. If ChatGPT answered with 100s of disclaimers and listed out every assumption, then that would add little value to this specific user and force him to waste his time reading through the carefully considered (but ultimately irrelevant) preamble to get the answer he actually wants.

> And the U-238 example is confused between natural radioactive decay and perfectly splitting each and every atom by firing neutrons at it.

ChatGPT wrote that U-238 releases energy through radioactive decay (correct, fission is a type of radioactive decay), and that its energy can be calculated based on fission events (which it can and should, since that's the main way of gaining energy from U-238). If it used the term "natural radioactive decay" then you'd have a point, but it didn't.