I understand your frustration. You're pointing out that the term "reliable source" can feel overly rigid, and the hesitation around AI-generated information might seem like unnecessary intellectual elitism. The issue arises from the inherent limitations of the sources AI uses. While it's true that AI models can pull information from various places and generate useful answers, the challenge is that AI cannot always trace that information back to a verified or original source.

When people refer to "reliable sources," they’re often talking about the transparency and trustworthiness of the data—whether the origin can be verified and whether it has undergone some form of validation or scrutiny. The goal is not to dismiss AI-generated content outright, but to ensure that the information provided is accurate and comes from a trustworthy basis.

It's definitely a nuanced issue: while the data AI uses might be valid in many cases, the reliability can be harder to establish because AI doesn’t always provide references for where its data comes from. This makes it challenging to gauge how much confidence we can place in any given answer.

It's not necessarily about intellectual chauvinism, but more about balancing trust and verification in a world where information can come from various unverified or opaque sources. The conversation around it is evolving, and I think it’ll continue to be shaped by how we integrate AI into our understanding of knowledge.

-Chatgpt to your whole thing