ChatGPT Isn’t Google—And Why That Matters
If you’ve used ChatGPT before and expected it to work like Google, providing you with quick and accurate answers, you might have felt surprised or disappointed. That’s because ChatGPT isn’t a search engine; it’s a language model. When we confuse the two, we risk spreading misinformation, misunderstanding what AI can do, or submitting assignments filled with mistakes we didn’t catch.
I work at the Techbar during the summer on a project about AI in education. I’ve found that many younger students expect ChatGPT to act like Google or an all-knowing source. It’s not that.
Let me explain.
Hallucinations: The AI Problem Everyone Warns You About
When we talk about AI “hallucinations,” we’re not talking about weird dreams or trippy visuals. We’re talking about false information generated by AI that appears convincing but is entirely fabricated. ChatGPT can invent fake sources, misattribute quotes, and write plausible-sounding but completely incorrect explanations.
For instance, you might ask it for scholarly articles on a niche topic. It may give you titles and author names that look real. They might even sound like something you could find in JSTOR or PubMed. But when you try to look them up? Nothing. They don’t exist.
This isn’t ChatGPT being “wrong,” it’s doing what it was trained to do: generate language that fits a pattern. It’s designed to predict the next words based on the data it was trained on. It doesn’t know facts. It doesn’t have memory of real events or real people unless you explicitly feed it that information. So when you treat ChatGPT like Google, you’re inviting errors that might not be obvious until it’s too late.
Although, anytime someone tells you to be wary of a hallucination, they bring up some examples, like:
First of all, in terms of AI, those images aren’t recent. They are from two years ago! Second, when I put those prompts into ChatGPT, my outputs are:
AI Is Smarter Now—But It’s Still Not Reliable for Facts
Indeed, ChatGPT has improved significantly. Its grammar is strong. It can offer general outlines and explanations that help break down complex ideas. I even use it to generate study guides or help me brainstorm practice problems. But I always double-check what it tells me—because hallucinations still happen.
Educators worry about these hallucinations for good reason. When students copy and paste content from ChatGPT without verifying its accuracy, it results in work that appears polished but lacks credibility. This is a significant development, especially in fields where precision is crucial, such as science, history, or law.
Back when I was in high school, Wikipedia was every teacher’s #1 opp (i.e., anyone in competition or against you). Now, ChatGPT is taking that place. But here’s the funny part: Wikipedia actually got more trustworthy over time because it’s constantly peer-reviewed and corrected. ChatGPT doesn’t update itself unless OpenAI retrains it. It’s not a living database. It won’t correct itself unless you catch the error.
So… How Should We Use It?
The answer isn’t to ban ChatGPT from classrooms altogether. Just like calculators, cell phones, and the internet before it, AI is a tool. And like any tool, its usefulness depends on how it’s used.
Some students use ChatGPT incorrectly: by simply dumping in a prompt and submitting whatever comes out. Educators worry about this, and rightly so. But others, like me, use AI to improve time management, organize information, or prepare for assignments. I’ve seen teachers embrace AI by letting students use it to turn essays into presentations or to build outlines that support their research. These uses encourage creativity, not shortcuts.
The key is teaching AI literacy, including the limits of what these tools can do. That means showing students:
- How to spot hallucinations,
- How to cross-reference with trusted sources,
- And when to use AI as a brainstorming tool, not as a definitive answer.
We also need to stop expecting AI to replace the human research process. That process still matters. Students need to ask better questions, verify claims, and think critically about what they’re reading. And teachers need to create assignments that prioritize these skills.
Final Thoughts: Treat AI Like Wikipedia in 2008
Remember when teachers used to say, “You can’t cite Wikipedia”? They weren’t wrong to be cautious, but over time, we learned how to use it responsibly. The same mindset applies to ChatGPT. Don’t treat it like Google. Don’t trust it to be right all the time. And definitely don’t turn in what it generates without checking.
AI is here to stay. Let’s stop pretending it’s a menace and start teaching students how to use it wisely. Misinformation spreads when we don’t understand our tools. But education—real education—starts with curiosity, not fear.