General-purpose LLMs like ChatGPT are fast, accessible, and genuinely useful for early-stage research. They are also structurally unreliable for professional intelligence reporting — generating confident-sounding text that may have no grounding in a verifiable source, with no citation trail, no audit record, and no way to reproduce the output six months later when someone asks where it came from. This piece examines three dimensions where the two approaches diverge most sharply: hallucination risk, source attribution, and audit trail — and offers a clear framework for deciding which tool belongs where in a professional intelligence workflow.