That provides value as you’re comparing (and hopefully analyzing) output. It’s totally on topic.

In a discussion of RISC v5 and if it can beat ARM someone just posting “ChatGPT says X” adds absolutely nothing to the discussion but noise.

It's always fun when people point out an LLMs insane responses to simple questions that shatter the illusion of them having any intelligence, but besides just giving us a good laugh when AI has a meltdown failing to produce a seahorse emoji, there are other times it might be valuable to discuss how they respond, such as when those responses might be dangerous, censored, or clearly being filled with advertising/bias

Weird that I keep seeing them then.

Yes, while citing an LLM in the same way is probably not as useful.

"I googled this" is only helpful when the statistic or fact they looked up was correct and well-sourced. When it's a reddit comment, you derail into a new argument about strength of sources.

The LLM skips a step, and gets you right to the "unusable source" argument.

"I googled this" usually means actually going into a page and seeing what it says, not just copy-pasting the search results page itself, which is the equivalent here.

In that case, the correct post here would be to say “here’s the stat” and cite the actual source (not “I googled it”), and then add some additional commentary.