Yes.
The discussion here,
mainly focuses on how hard ChatGPT makes it for experts to vet out wrong generated answers, and it makes it impossible for lesser experienced people, i.e., the people actually asking questions.
The main-site question that caused your Meta-question is an excellent example for how hard it is for a non-expert to disbelieve what ChatGPT tells them.
Because such questions sink much more time than they cost the ChatGPT system and the asker to generate, without being based on actual research, they should at least been downvoted.
Think about it this way: ChatGPT, literally, is just a fancy random generator that generates texts that look plausible. It has zero understanding of EE (or anything for that matter), it is just astonishingly good at creating text as it would look when done human would answer. The veracity of that text is totally irrelevant to the model!
In other words, ChatGPT is designed to make it as hard as possible to spot the nonsense it's spilling, which maximizes the effort of debunking the statements.
Not having any own understanding is basically "too broad" (now: needs more focus, a SE-wide close reason wording change that I still don't like).
Because we're not taking anything away from people that actually put in the works to read upon a topic on their own, I'll say that we don't need too much nuance here: if any post, question, answer or comment, is primarily based on a generative text model, it's immediately up for deletion.
In the end, chatGPT is quite a lot like online trolls on social media: it's cheap for them to produce counterfactual or offensive content, while it requires high effort to write answers and rebuttals. Let's not feed the trollschatbots. Identify, banish, move on.