There's a lot of hype and misinformation going around right now, thus the sassy remarks.

This is the best post I've seen about how it works behind the scenes. We shouldn't expect fancy autocomplete to be good at math.
https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/what-is-chatgpt-doing-and-why-does-it-work/

The title is "[D] GPT-4 is really dumb" and what would be accurate is "[D] GPT-4 is bad at math problems". This was a known issue with GPT 3.5 and I expect it to continue to be an issue. but I think it's a mischaracterization to say it's "dumb" when there are a number of non-mathematical applications where it's impressive so far.

So while my statement was a simplification, I stand by the intention. You are evaluating a tool based on an application I don't think it's meant for.

"I purchased a Swiss Army Knife but it's a terrible calculator"

What level of correlation would make a critic "good" at their job in this case? I would expect some divergence between the "quality" of the art and popular appeal. Plenty of us love trashy, awful movies.