The 'critical thinking' part at this point in time leads you to only one conclusion: that the tool is unreliable and dangerous and shouldn't be used. Or, you're teaching kids that they need to cross-reference all 'authoritative sources' which leads to a complete failure of the system - if you give kids a textbook will they have been 'trained' by GPT to not believe a word of any of the claims in it without cross-referencing? How does that enable better education.
If you provide a tool from a position of authority it needs to be a reliable and believable tool; standing in a position of authority and handing out access (to children!) to a lie box and asking those children to 'rely on it' is frankly abusive. That's beyond mixed messaging, that's just some form of weird mental torture.
I just think it's a real issue to give kids free access to a tool that so confidently makes stuff up. I know that textbooks aren't perfect but they're at least audited by a committee of experts, mistakes slip in but there's oversight, there's a procedure to ensure that they're reliable representations of (currently understood) facts, and that when politics enters the textbook production process it (correctly) becomes a bit of a national scandal.
And its enough when such a technology is 80% right. Nobody will verify every answer if it is correct most of the time.
The issue arises when the belief you have is tied to your ego so you only cherry-pick the evidence that will satisfy your ego and ignore/question everything else, but not this.