It reminds me of when Wikipedia was new and we were told repeatedly that we couldn't trust it (by teachers, articles, etc.). It didn't matter if we could point to studies that found Wikipedia had similar accuracy to other encyclopedias. They objected on the grounds that anyone could edit it and anything on it _could_ be wrong and there's no publisher or paid editors to ensure accuracy.
ChatGPT tends to do well on common questions, where the answer is plastered in hundreds of articles across the internet. The internal cooking temperature of a steak is a great example of this. There are many other types of questions it fails at.
A better example of where you shouldn't trust ChatGPT is asking it the distance between two cities. It'll get it right for a few common pairs of cities (eg London to Paris), but it'll give you a wrong answer for most less common pairs (eg London to Cairo).
Also ChatGPT is only knowledgeable about general things, but even there it makes errors. It's basically a very complex scraping algorithm, the more interesting part is the language generation; even then this stuff seems at least unethical if not illegal since it's using other people's work/research without citation.
Who checks if that book actually exists and is not made up? Especially if it's not a highly politically charged topic.
And then there are circular citations. Someone posts unverified/false info on wikipedia. Then it gets cited by some blog or other media that wikipedia considers trustworthy. And that then gets added to wikipedia as a reliable source.