Greatly varies by the model, but such a flat denial along with calling those with (verifiably accurate [0]) experiences which happen to be different from yours "the anti-AI crew" and just assuming they can't possible use LLMs and couldn't possibly have formed their opinions on evidence, well, says a lot.
LLMs, even frontier models by major providers, still have no reliable internalised way to assess the accuracy of their output and they have, do and will continue to for the foreseeable future, lead people down paths they shouldn't [1], partly by their architecture and the limits of the technology, partly by an intent for maximising retention.
For what it's worth on people, I have, both in politics and business, unfortunately made the painful discovery that, whether intentional (because the powerful person in question cannot or doesn't want to deal with different opinions to their own) or unintentionally (because those with sycophantic tendencies simply managed to manipulate themselves into their inner circle over years and became trusted), there are people in (financial, political or other types of) power which are surrounded by few willing to tell them when they are wrong and even fewer that are actually listened to if push comes to shove, which often affects the personality and mental health of said powerful people negatively, to the detriment of society, their family, their employees, etc.
Members of the media are actually complicity. I very much disagree that the media presents obscenely powerful people in too negative a light, more the opposite. Am very firm that, to retain access to the rich, powerful and famous, there is far too much sane-washing of utterly ridiculous, unacceptable, harmful and/or dangerous behaviour. Sometimes the person in questions own health and safety are put at risk, because neither the people around them, nor public opinion or reporting treat their behaviour in the way appropriate. Sometimes this again leads to harm for the public, their family, those working under them, etc.
What'd get someone with less power or in a lower tax bracket ridiculed or even sectioned is often reported as "eccentricities", just being "passionate about a topic" and trying to do the "marketing rounds".
[0] https://artificialanalysis.ai/?omniscience=omniscience-hallu...
> LLMs, even frontier models by major providers, still have no reliable internalised way to assess the accuracy of their output
This is false. Perhaps you meant they have insufficient methods, or imperfect methods, but asserting none at all is facile and your links do not say that at all.
If your believes were true, this actual quote, pulled from a recent sonnet conversation, would be impossible:
“The XT60’s 15A limit is unsuitable for an appliance that… no, it’s the XT30 that is rated for 15A, XT60 is rated for 30A continuous. For a 20A appliance, XT60 will be fine.”