Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

That's a very constructive way of responding to AI being hot trash.

Well, the OP reviewed the "AI" output, deemed it useful and only then implemented it.

This is generally how you work with LLMs.

I am a bit conflicted about this story, because this was a case when the hallucination is useful.

Amateur musicians often lack just one or two features in the program they use, and the devs won't respond to their pleas.

Adding support for guitar tabs has made OP's product almost certainly more versatile and useful for a larger set of people. Which, IMHO, is a good thing.

But I also get the resentment of "a darn stupid robot made me do it". We don't take kindly to being bossed around by robots.

Well, this is one of the use-cases for what it's not trash. LLMs can do some things.

I don't think they deemed it "useful":

  We’ve never supported ASCII tab; ChatGPT was outright lying to people. And making us look bad in the process, setting false expectations about our service.... We ended up deciding: what the heck, we might as well meet the market demand.

  [...] 

  My feelings on this are conflicted. I’m happy to add a tool that helps people. But I feel like our hand was forced in a weird way. Should we really be developing features in response to misinformation?

The feature seems pretty useless for practicing guitar since ASCII tablature usually doesn't include the rhythm: it is a bit shady to present the music as faithfully representing the tab, especially since only beginner guitarists would ask ChatGPT for help - they might not realize the rhythm is wrong. If ChatGPT didn't "force their hand" I doubt they would have included a misleading and useless feature.

ASCII tablature is not something I use and not something I know much about, but if you are correct then I think that might be a good reason to deliberately avoid such a feature.

How is being bossed around by robots any worse than being bossed around by people?

Over the last year, on average, I've had much more luck logically reasoning with AIs than with humans.

I really don't see any good reason against replacing some product managers with AIs that actually talk to individual users all the time and synthesize their requests and feedback. You should still probably have a top-level CPO to set strategy, but for the day-to-day discovery and specification, I would argue that AIs already have benefits over humans.