[JeremyNT]

I'm reluctant for the same reasons.

Google search might uncover BS too, but I'm already calibrated to expect it, and there are plenty of sources right alongside whatever I pulled the result from where I can go immediately get a second opinion.

With the LLMs, maybe they're spot on 95% of the time, but the 5% or whatever is bullshit, but it's all said in the same "voice" with the same apparent degree of confidence and presented without citations. It becomes both more difficult to verify a specific claim (because there's not one canonical source for it) as well as it involves more cognitive load (in that I specifically have to context switch to another tool to check it).

Babysitting a tool that's exceptionally good at creating plausible bullshit every now and then means a new way of working that I don't think I'm willing to adopt.