I didn't think that was what was being discussed.

I was attempting to imply that with high-quality literature, it is often reviewed by humans who have some sort of knowledge about a particular topic or are willing to cross reference it with existing literature. The reader often does this as well.

For low-effort literature, this is often not the case, and can lead to things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect where a trained observer can point out that something is wrong, but an untrained observer cannot perceive what is incorrect.

IMO, this is adjacent to what human agents interacting with language models experience often. It isn't wrong about everything, but the nuance is enough to introduce some poor underlying thought patterns while learning.