In many cases, the pattern-matching algorithm does better than intelligent sources. For example, in my area of research, if I ask GPT for a lit review, GPT is about as good as a newly-minted PhD in a junior research position. There will be errors and issues, but it's not a bad starting point. Right now, if I'm writing something non-proprietary, I'll sometimes ask GPT for a few drafts first.

Outside of my area of research, it's fantastic. Recently, I was doing something which touched on an obscure area of biology. The ability to talk an AI with the background of a newly-minted Ph.D who sometimes makes errors was gold. I needed to verify information provided, but as a first-pass of what to look for or where it look, it was really rather good.