I said rhymes. You are presenting argument against something which I did not write.
It's worth remembering though that it all drops down to trust anyway. What source do you consider trustworthy? Journalists write false stuff all the time (you may know some specific people you can trust), so that leaves research papers. Reliability of data there is higher than from a random sample on the web, but it is very far from something I would trust blindly.
Any human compiling data from different sources can also make a mistake. Can fail to use reason when it should be clear that the data is not consistent. I don't think there's any doubt that in some time, such error rate will be lower for large models than it is for humans.
It's worth remembering though that it all drops down to trust anyway. What source do you consider trustworthy? Journalists write false stuff all the time (you may know some specific people you can trust), so that leaves research papers. Reliability of data there is higher than from a random sample on the web, but it is very far from something I would trust blindly.
Any human compiling data from different sources can also make a mistake. Can fail to use reason when it should be clear that the data is not consistent. I don't think there's any doubt that in some time, such error rate will be lower for large models than it is for humans.