That's presumably complicated as models get more and more powerful, though, since there's also tons of published material talking about the blood libel and how

That's presumably complicated as models get more and more powerful, though, since there's also tons of published material talking about the blood libel and how it's false. You might say it's unexpected behavior for a language model to bring up the blood libel at all (in the sense that modern western people now culturally regard it as "about antisemitism" rather than "about Jews and Judaism"). But you could imagine a model saying that "medieval Christian sources often said Jews used Christian children's blood for ritual purposes, but this is now thought to be a myth created through unfamiliarity with Jews and deliberate hostility and animosity toward them". But this also points at a more general question about how language models deal with the existence of documents that say contradictory things, which has been an enormous challenge for human beings (who don't all agree about what's true or which sources are more reliable or relevant).