I only trust LLMs for a first draft, where I can actually fact-check everything, or light copy-editing for tone and style.
I wouldn't expect a fresh graduate to be dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's on their research; and as LLMs are like a fresh graduate at coding, I assume they're like that at everything else, too.
Useful, sure, but not what I'd call a "high quality source".
I similarly dismiss people's opinions that rely on LLMs to inform them on important subjects, rather than using them as a search engine to find more reliable sources.
You can't trust a person that educated themselves with an LLM, because they have filled their head with bad foundations. That's very difficult to correct later on.
I was taught since at least high school that you don’t cite encyclopedias as sources because they are not sources - they are summaries of sources.
LLMs are similar but worse. They are a statistical approximation of truth, without a concept of truth. They are fuzzing sources that you and I have access to already. I find calling that hand off of agency and responsibility “being informed” deeply disturbing.