Over on StackOverflow they banned the use of ChatGPT, detailed the penalties (a ban) but did not offerdetails of how well this usage can be detected. The primary aim is likely deterrence.
The major concern does not seem to be discrimination against artificial intelligence but rather the fear of being spammed with difficult to detect spam (i.e. really good English language and semi-wisdoms but not much of actual content).
For a precise topic like programming it may be easy to actually check that an answer indeed answers a question. For a rather less precise topic like politics, it might be more difficult, the need to deal with this kind of problem is even higher.
On the other hand, if answer quality is the major concern, then maybe the problem runs much deeper than simply using a bot or not using it.
To see a potentially positive side: I could imagine reading a question, thinking about how I would answer it, then asking ChatGPT how they would answer it, then using that answer (the parts I actually agree with) to improve my own answer. Why not, it's just another resource and used in this way would actually increase quality of the content.
In the end, what convinces me most, is the fact that ChatGPT is not made for answering questions. It doesn't aim to do that and is not tested for that. Any such effect would be purely coincidental. Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that it's really bad (content-wise). Therefore we would end up with a higher quality (of content) if we would ban it too and I agree with that.
To check the quality I looked at one instance I have seen, one answer to Are there conservative socialists in the US? which was written 2 days ago and deleted by a mod with a reference to this question. I assume it has been produced by ChatGPT and I will reproduce it here for the sake of discussion.
The question uses incomplete definitions of Socialism and Conservatism. The answer starts with
It is possible for someone to hold both conservative and socialist views, but it is not common for these two ideologies to be combined in the way you describe.
I would probably agree although I would say that this is very badly sourced (the whole answer does not include any link at all). Is it really not common? Why not?
Conservatism, as a political ideology, generally emphasizes the importance of tradition, social stability, and limited government intervention in the economy. Socialism, on the other hand, is a political and economic ideology that advocates for greater government control of the means of production and the distribution of wealth, with the goal of promoting equality and social justice.
This is actually commendable, starting with definitions so everyone is on the same page. I like that paragraph.
While it is possible for someone to hold conservative views on social issues such as gender roles and sexuality, while also supporting socialist policies such as free education and healthcare, these two ideologies are generally seen as being at odds with one another. The combination of conservative social views and socialist economic policies is not a common political position in the United States or elsewhere.
Kind of repetitive here, reiterating with a bit more detail the content of the first paragraph. Extremely thin on background information. Why is it possible? Are the two ideologies really being seen at odds and if so by whom? Is the combination really not common in the US or elsewhere?
It is also worth noting that the term "socialism" can mean different things to different people, and it is often used as a catch-all term for a variety of left-wing political ideologies. In the United States, the term is often used by political conservatives as a pejorative to describe any policies or ideas that they consider to be too left-wing or radical. This can make it difficult to determine exactly what someone means when they describe themselves as a "conservative socialist."
The argumentation is coherent, but I would probably disagree. From the question it becomes clear who a "conservative socialist" is meant to be. The text is very general and does not adequately address the question. Also some odd formulations (why would somebody describe themself as ..., that was not asked for in the question).
In conclusion, it is not common for someone to hold both conservative and socialist views in the way you describe. While it is possible for someone to hold these two ideologies simultaneously, they are generally seen as being at odds with one another.
And another repetition.
Does it answer the question? Maybe. As it is posed one can say with millions of US American, that most probably yes, somebody with these views exist and the answer agrees with this. However, a truly useful answer would give examples. And this is the greatest weakness, this answer gives no details, no true information except some vague claims about it being possible but not common.
While the definitions of the terms are actually useful knowledge, the answer is very repetitive. The conclusion that such a combination exists but is not common is not backed up by a link to any external resource. I wonder how the machine came to this conclusion?
Value for the site: Close to zero or negative because people will waste their time reading commonalities about the topic. The bot is not able to deal with the specific details of a question and is not able to source statements. Language however is almost perfect (and that's what it was made for, so full marks there).
With that value it really should be banned.