And right here you could bump into problems, because how would you know if what you got back is really the opinion of reputable historians? For all you know it could be giving you the opinions of a layman on Reddit.
> Then, go to Google Scholar or similar and look up that document and see what different reputable historians have said about it.
Looks like that could’ve been the first step. Identify the reputable historians and go from there.
Now there might be outliers that are missing from both lists but which might be worth looking at, as it's not that unusual for consensus viewpoints to be overturned by new information and so on, and that's not something LLMs are likely to be very helpful with.
Fundamentally, my point is that if skeptical thinking, rational analysis, research strategies etc. aren't taught to people from a young age than it really doesn't matter whether the BS they're subjected to is human-generated or AI-generated.
For the example, causes of the Great War, I'd first ask it to provide a list of the top ten reasons reputable historians cite as primary causes of World War One. Then, for each reason that looked interesting, I'd ask the LLM to provide arguments for and against, including one primary historical document in support of each side. Then, go to Google Scholar or similar and look up that document and see what different reputable historians have said about it. A few iterations of this process should get you to some reliable information even in a field you know nothing about.
This is a time-consuming process, and requires active engagement rather than what many people have been trained to do by our atrocious education system and watching television, i.e. passive absorption of content without skepticism.