[dvfjsdhgfv]

It's a very heavy hammer. I used it in the way you describe and after double-checking noticed some crucial details were missed and certain facts were subtly misrepresented.

But I agree with you, especially in areas where they have a lot of training data, they can be very useful and save tons of time.

[Karrot_Kream]

I don't think there's a substitute for reading the source material. You have to read the actual paper that's cited. You have to read the code that's being sourced/generated. But used as a reasoning search engine, it's a huge enabler. I mean so much of research literally is reasoning through piles of existing research. There's probably a large amount of good research (especially the kind that don't easily get grant funding) that can "easily" shake out through existing literature that humans just haven't been able to synthesize correctly.