I think a lot of people drastically underestimate how much the LLMs mislead the user with plausible-sounding answers. I would say that whatever % of queries you found them not to give you correct answers, the actual percentage is materially higher.
In my work niche, which at least 10,000 other software engineers do each day, ChatGPT 4 and 4o almost never give correct answers. Usually, they are misleading. I do find myself trying the LLMs when I'm faced with a challenging problem, but in that scenario they have not been helpful once.
Granted, there are areas of work that are much more popular and LLMs will be more helpful there. But these are individual scenarios, and we can find many where LLMs are fantastic and many where LLMs are awful if we wanted to cherry-pick.
Overall, the quality of the content is lower than what a human professional would do in their area of work, including flexibility, interactivity, and accessibility. This extends to books written by professionals and lectures given by them, as well as work carried out by them. It applies to home carpentry as much as it does to neurosurgery.
The more specific the knowledge has to be, the more this is true. The more generic, the less. But all-in-all, I think it's still very evident humans produce higher quality knowledge and content. And any quantized model of that content and knowledge will be unable to reproduce it at the same fidelity or quality.
With that said, I hope I expressed this enough — I do see your point in some circumstances. Just not overall.