I think the median response is something between revulsion and mild dislike if it's spoken about in the context of the classroom. But there are also a pretty significant group of people who find it interesting as a potential research tool. (Also the question of what "it" is matters a lot here - if you asked people in history about ChatGPT, the response would be massively different than if you asked about machine learning tools for OCR and data mining historical documents, which there is a lot of support for).

Personally I think it absolutely will lead to major changes in historical research. The transcription and translation abilities of transformer models alone are already leading to significant changes and advances. For instance, I'm working on a post about new transformer based OCR tools like Leo that are geared specifically for historical research and led by historians (https://www.tryleo.ai - I'm not involved in the project, just an interested observer).

IMO AI tools will definitely still be used by a minority of historians in a 5-10 year horizon. Historical research is not like some STEM fields where there is a lab-base culture oriented around adopting new tech and finding applications quickly. It's a lot more of a solo, idiosyncratic process of personal research and that is partly why I like it, but it also means that uptake of new tools is much slower. That said, historians do use technology and digital tools all the time and are not inherently adverse to it. It's interesting reading history books from the 1970s, like the works of Lawrence Stone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Stone) and seeing the footnotes about how the data was encoded in punchcards and analyzed by mainframes. I expect we will be seeing history books by the end of the 2020s that use custom data analytics and tagging tools developed by the historians themselves using vibe coding.

Thanks for the question, will be writing more about this. Feel free to get in touch any time.