> I would feel compelled to Google search everything after the fact to make sure it wasn't lying to me

https://gizmodo.com/googles-algorithm-is-lying-to-you-about-...

>I knew from personal experience that this was a lie. Recipes always said it took 5 or 10 minutes to caramelize onions, and when you followed the recipes, you either got slightly cooked onions or you ended up 40 minutes behind schedule. So I caramelized some onions and recorded how long it really took—28 minutes if you cooked them as hot as possible and constantly stirred them, 45 minutes if you were sane about it—and I published those results on Slate, along with a denunciation of the false five-to-10 minute standard.

Trusting Google is just as apt to get you in trouble.

For me at least, I sometimes find it very difficult to google information I don’t yet know a lot about. It is very difficult if you don’t know the jargon to find anything that goes beyond the very surface level. Or if you did find the correct word, it goes too fast and you are not able to follow. It can be difficult to find an article in the “goldilocks zone” where I can follow along but also learn a lot. I do not do this, but I can imagine that AI could help with that as a starting of point. Then I would probably still google to confirm.

yeah I went back to google to verify the information - like the other commenter said, I didn't know where to start, so gpt was very helpful.

It's shocking how gpt has almost no utility though because you can't actually TRUST anything it says. I've been thinking about that a lot lately.