Isn't this the worst possible case for an LLM? The integrity of the product is central to the value of it and the user is by definition unable to verify that integrity?
I'm not following, what's "by definition" here? You can verify the integrity of an AI report in the same way you would do with any other report someone prepared for you - when you encounter something that feels wrong, check the referenced source yourself.
I think it's normal to invest authority in a report that someone else has prepared - people take what is written on trust because the person who prepared it is accountable for any errors... not just now, but forever.
That's a lofty ideal, but the typical research report is flawed in multiple ways, and even in academia "Most Published Research Findings Are False" [0], and very few people's careers have in any way suffered, as there's very little de-facto accountability for this trust.
The best case scenario as I see it, is that we become more critical of research in general, and start training AI to help us identify these issues. And then we could perhaps utilize GAN to improve report generation.