This is why once you are using to using them, you start asking them for there the plan goes wrong. They won't tell you off the bat, whuch can be frustrating, but they are really good at challenging your assumptions, if you ask them to do so.

They are good at telling you what else you should be asking, if you ask them to do so.

People don't use the tools effectively and then think that the tool can't be used effectively...

Which isn't true, you just have to know how the tool acts.

I'm no expert, but the most frequent recommendations I hear to address this are:

a) tell it that it's wrong and to give you the correct information.

b) use some magical incantation system prompt that will produce a more critical interlocutor.

The first requires knowing enough about the topic to know the chatbot is full of shit, which dramatically limits the utility of an information retrieval tool. The second assumes that the magical incantation correctly and completely does what you think it does, which is not even close to guaranteed. Both assume it even has the correct information and is capable of communicating it to you. While attempting to use various models to help modify code written in a less-popular language with a poorly-documented API, I learned how much time that can waste the hard way.

If your use case is trivial, or you're using it as a sounding board with a topic you're familiar with as you might with, say, a dunning-kruger-prone intern, then great. I haven't found a situation in which I find either of those use cases compelling.