Just because it is important for the use case does not mean we can make it work. It's a pretty well known fundamental limitation of the technology. No amount of elbow grease will get it there.
There's an interesting tradeoff here, a year or two ago maybe it got facts right 50% of the time. Everyone knew not to rely on it.
Now, suppose we are 90% of the way there, only technically proficient people would know not to trust it. (like not adding Internet Explorer toolbars! Or remembering to use ad blockers..)
A few years later, suppose we have spend a lot of money and effort getting it 99% of the way there, trusting it would be somewhat natural by then. And then for the important 1% of the situations, it would stand to cause real harm. 1% seems low, but for a million invocations, you'd have 10000 mistakes.
Your progression is basically the exact same progression as things like Wikipedia, and web search in ggeneral. So, I guess we dont need to hypothesis. Just look around and see how its played out.
How many people take the first result on Google as gospel when looking things up?
Google search and Wikipedia both started out being fairly reliable to their source of truth.
Google pretty much guaranteed that their top results were relevant to the search query. And wikipedia had an army of people making sure everything was backed up by the references.
Crucially, neither claimed to be an arbiter of truth.