This is patently false, see Tao’s recent use of ChatGPT regarding the Jacobian conjecture.

Depends on the context.

In this case he is right : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49239999

	▲	fn-mote an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Your quote shows someone BELOW the line being able to do something. That could not be considered amplification because multiplying a skill of 0 doesn’t get you anywhere. But if you want to see it that way, it doesn’t bother me. The Tao reference is someone far ABOVE the line getting excellent results from the LLM. So in this case the Tao example refutes the GGP claim.

▲

beepbooptheory 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Kinda talking about pretty squishy things here, saying something is "patently false" in the context feels pretty stifling, or at least uncharitable.

Like, what, we are all supposed to close the book on this abstract, very new question. Something that by any approximation is extremely nuanced and also pretty meaningful? Like, "oh OK, well I guess that's that then!"