Well, that seems a quite tedious way to get a notorious "bull-shitter" /liar to stick to the facts... Once the dust settles I am sure we will find some sensible use-cases for this generation of machine learning tools (or we already have, deepL's translation often is a decent starting point), I just predict these will fall far below the current hype... It is not that among human writers there is a lack of folks able to spin a convincing yarn already (both negatively when making facts up (aka operand handling of the truth) and positively when making whole stories up (aka literature))...
Well, ChatGPT will not make "sense" out of anything anyway, it will pick up the underlaying statistics, so if enough folks write untested and wrong hypothesis, ChatGPT is likely to preferentially regurgitate these... To repeat, these tools do not "understand" anything they just extract commonality in their training corpus... (as before this is painting with a broad brush, the details do differ, but at the core this IMHO still holds).
Yes, and not the least because ChatGPT has no concept of "truth", and without one "truthful" is a tricky qualifier 
Side-note: I would not be amazed if any comment in this thread would have been written by ChatGPT "itself", after all this is a somewhat fuzzy topic where a convincingly sounding position does not need supporting facts