It is much better than others I've tried.
But it's still very necessary to not trust, and to verify, everything an LLM so confidently says.

For sure. What I like about this one is the citations...it makes it easy to see where it's getting its information, so it really speeds up the validation.

I tried it on a programming problem. I asked for the C structure corresponding to a certain packet type of a communication protocol which is fairly widely used but not really publicly documented. It missed one one-byte field, admittedly one which is not generally used and I think is there mainly for alignment padding. The rest of the answer was correct and comprehensive, with good field names and descriptions. When I asked about the missing field, it apologised (!) and gave me the name and purpose of the missing field. So I couldn't use its response as given, but I'd call it a high quality fail. I added some of its response to the comments in a program I'm working on...but not the code.

Jim