The first half is wrong too. GPS has nothing to do with satellites being able to see lots of things from high up. The whole thing is just nonsense that looks plausibly like an explanation until you try to decipher it.
Achieving simplicity by glossing over details is distinct from achieving simplicity by stating something incorrect.
Which one is more appropriate and/or typical will probably depend on what questions the five-year-old is asking, but I think it's reasonable to say the former is usually preferable to the latter.
I didn't even notice that bit (maybe GPT is a flat-earther?).
Something GPT discourse has been demonstrating to me is that I'm not usually a very careful reader. I apparently skim a lot. Or maybe I skim GPT outputs because I'm biased in my expectations already?
It does in a sense because the radio waves need an approximate line of sight to reach your GPS receiver. Being high up gives them a large coverage.