I haven't read all of the (28) previous comments, so I could well be repeating something already noted, but it seems to me that "Chat" is an amalgamator: it uses key words to access its store of 'data' and present a summary of whatever it has there--with, of course, libraries' worth of 'knowledge' having been included. It can seem to be 'thinking' in making such connections, but that is only due to words it has been programmed to use to 'flesh out' its response. Those words make it seem both 'reasonable'--even-handed--and authoritative.

'Social Scholarly' performed an interesting exercise (here in Medium) in which ChatGPT was asked to evaluate an obscure economic proposal devised by Stephen Stillwell. I thought it did a great job of revealing the strengths and weaknesses of 'Chat'.