People understand the concept of liars and bad faith actors. People don't seem to understand that facts don't factor into a chatbot's output at all. cf all the replies defending them in this post.

most models I've seen now cite sources you can check when they're reporting factual stuff

Maybe online models can, but local has no access to the internet so it can't. However, it's likely generating a response that is predictable that can cite a source, but it could totally make that up. Hopefully people would double check it to make sure it actually is and says what it's claiming, but we both know most won't. Citing a source is just a way to make it look intelligent while it still generates bullshit.

Yeah LLMs might be more likely to give bad info, but people are unreliable too, they're biased and flawed and often have an agenda, and they are frequently, confidently wrong.

You're saying this like they're equal. People put thought into it. LLMs do not. Yes, con men exist. However, not everyone is a con man. You can follow authors who are known to be accurate. You can do the same with LLMs. The problem is consistency. A con man will always be a con man. With an LLM you have no way to know if it's bullshitting this time or not, so you should always assume it's bullshit. In which case, what's the point? However, most people assume it's always honest, because that's what the marketing leads you to believe