If you don't want to be seeing ChatGPT generated content here, you should downvote it to discourage the poster from doing so. This is a perfect use of a downvote IMHO.

If you don't mind or care enough, obviously don't downvote, and if you love it, upvote it. That's how we get our community to develop some shared standards of communication.

FWIW, if someone wants ChatGPT content, they can just go to ChatGPT too.

True, although in this case the ChatGPT explanation seems to be mostly accurate.

The one dubious point is the definition of "bisect". The definition is completely accurate in this context. But the sentence after the definition starts with "In this context,", implying that the definition itself should be relatively context-independent. Yet the term "bisect" in programming is more commonly used to refer to something slightly different: dividing some code's commit history into parts, not the code itself.

Also, several of the explanations are wordy and uninsightful, though not false.

…Admittedly, this is all beside the point. ChatGPT output carries a high risk of being inaccurate, so even if it's accurate in some specific case, readers have no way of knowing that. Which means that you shouldn't post ChatGPT output unless you can personally vouch for its accuracy, but in that case why use ChatGPT at all? Still, in this case I'll retrospectively vouch for it.