There is a problem with this approach, and it's two fold.

1. ChatGPT is very confident in it's answers even when it's blatantly wrong: For instance in a conversation about poker it was able correctly identify the topic, what I was asking and all the individual nuances. And it proceeded to tell me what a pair is correctly. But at the same it told me I was holding a pair of clubs...which obviously is nonsensical. In other words, like a sophomore, it was confidently wrong.

2. Taking ChatGPT at face value: in order to use it efficiently, you need to validate what it says and be able to recognize when it's wrong. In this way it's less of a learning tool and more a teaching tool. I.e. as a student you wouldn't want to "learn" from it, but as teacher you could use it to pull together a lecture without having to write it from scratch...with the expectation that you would (or at least may) have to edit and correct it.