Between Conversational AI afficionados, the questions about the value of GPT-generated text (i.e., about copyright, ownership, merit, ethicality etc.) are hotly discussed, so you may not find a single value answer on this.
My take currently is this: GPTs are a tool like any other. They are not persons or entities and thus cannot, for example, have rights regarding ownership or authorship. So if a human uses a GPT to create large amounts of text, that does not really matter in itself. What matters is whether the results are fit for the job or not.
There is no really good way to automatically determine whether a given text has been created by a GPT or not, at least since the likes of ChatGPT 3.5+. The default, regular, text, has been tried in blind tests, and humans were not easily capable to tell. And you can, using your prompts, strongly influence the kind of wording the GPT creates, so even if we had a tool to recognize the default language of a well-known GPT, the author could trivially flavour the text so that it would be impossible.
In this case, you found out that the paper is, basically, a pile of junk. This information, worded more professionally, is what the editor is interested in. You do not have to guess which tools the author used to come up with his drivel. It should not matter which text editor, which data analysis tools, which search engine, or which GPT they used. If using a GPT makes part of their process easier or quicker, then so be it.
Whether the usage of the GPT has to be disclosed is something which probably varies as well. If it is used just as a fancy evolved text editor (for example, you could use it as a "thesaurus" to just find different wordings for you; or to rewrite your content so it contains less grammatical errors or easier language), then a journal might be fine with it; if it somehow had a much higher impact on the actual content (frankly, hard to imagine at this point of time) then it probably would need to be disclosed. This would be up to the individual journal to regulate.
N.B.: there are of course areas where the usage of a GPT has to be tightly watched (e.g. questions surrounding copyright, or using personal or otherwise sensitive/protected data in the prompts and thus at least possibly disclosing them to 3rd parties), but that is not principally different from any other search engine and I'd say out of scope for this question. Copyright especially is an issue, in my estimation, that's more relevant to AI generated picture/movie material than text.
Regarding the question of whether us here talking about this could teach ChatGPT how to avoid this in the future... unlikely. It is always hard to predict the future, but that's just not how these GPTs work. ChatGPT's training is years old (and was so even when the hype started). Combining a GPTs massive training base with current text and events is the hot frontier of GPT development; but the more current info is usually handled in a very different manner than the base training, from a technical point of view.
If the developers/scientists of a GPT wanted to make their texts even harder to detect, they would not need our input here, but they would just work on their algorithms etc. directly (they know much more about how their software works in detail). They don't need to wait for the training of the next big GPT to somehow pick up on this StackEchange question. There is no intentionality within the statistic data that's fed into such a system, it's just thoughtless statistics on a scale incomprehensible to intuition.