I don't understand. You quite clearly said "I am not using an LLM to protect my ego or to avoid being proven wrong. I am using it because I literally do not have the academic background to debate the nuanced history of MIT methodologies, and I do not care to." Doesn't this mean you are relying upon the LLM to validate your system? And if you can't trust the LLM on moral questions (which I certainly don't, considering their provenance) doesn't that invalidate your argument.
It's like constructing a building without the ability to understand building regulations and design constraints and then relying upon an untrustworthy builder or surveyor to say "yeah - that building is structurally sound". If you don't have the ability to fully understand the methodology you don't have the ability to know whether you are being given valid advice. That's why we rely on qualified architects rather than some amateur who comes up with a back-of-an-envelope building design.