@ErikJonker

It's surely a matter of opinion what "much" better is. And of course the answer you got when you tried it (you did, right?) might have been qualitatively different. But just for the record, here is the entire conversation thread:

-------------------------------------
PROMPT:
Can you solve X*(X-2)>0 ?

RESPONSE:
Sure! We can start by finding the critical points where the expression X*(X-2) equals zero:

X*(X-2) = 0
X = 0 or X = 2

These critical points divide the real number line into three intervals: (-∞, 0), (0, 2), and (2, ∞). We can test each interval by choosing a test point within it and checking whether the expression is positive or negative at that point:

Interval (-∞, 0):
Let's choose X = -1, then X*(X-2) = (-1)*(-1-2) = 3 > 0, which means the expression is positive in this interval.

Interval (0, 2):
Let's choose X = 1, then X*(X-2) = 1*(1-2) = -1 < 0, which means the expression is negative in this interval.

Interval (2, ∞):
Let's choose X = 3, then X*(X-2) = 3*(3-2) = 3 > 0, which means the expression is positive in this interval.

So the solution to X*(X-2) > 0 is X ∈ (-∞, 0) U (2, ∞). In other words, any value of X outside the interval (0, 2) will satisfy the inequality.

--------------

I think this is remarkably accessible, and the way the steps of the solution are correctly sequenced, motivated, explained, and executed. Although - I have not tried to explore the limits of variations (less-or-equal? fractions? complex numbers? Higher order polynomials? trigonometric functions? ...)

If my response was unnecessarily abrasive, do accept my apologies. I feel rather frustrated about the appalling groupthink that has taken over the ChatGPT hashtag on Mastodon in the last three weeks, which is drowning out one of the society's three most important conversations of the times, with an avalanche of Dunning-Kruger expertise.