Perhaps in low stakes situations it could at least guarantee some entertainment value. Though I worry that folks will get into high stakes situations without the tools to distinguish facts from smoothly worded slop.
The texts have to be short and high-level for the assistants to have any chance of accurately explaining them.
You won't be able to verify everything taught from first principles, so do have to at some point give different sources different credibility I think.
No it isnt.
But I’m not trying to become an expert in these subjects. If I were, this isn’t the tool I’d use in isolation (which I don’t for these cases anyway.)
Part of reading, questioning, interpreting, and thinking about these things is (a) defining concepts I don’t understand and (b) digging into the levels beneath what I might.
It doesn’t have to be 100% correct to understand the shape and implications of a given study. And I don’t leave any of these interactions thinking, “ah, now I am an expert!”
Even if it were perfectly correct, neither my memory nor understanding is. That’s fine. If I continue to engage with the topic, I’ll make connections and notice inconsistencies. Or I won’t! Which is also fine. It’s right enough to be net (incredibly) useful compared to what I had before.
And there’s always some risk.
To your point, it would be easy to accidentally accept things as true (especially the more subjective "why" things), but the hit rate is good enough that I'm still getting tons of value through this approach. With respect to mistakes, it's honestly not that different from learning something wrong from a friend or a teacher, which, frankly, happens all the time. So it pretty much comes down to the individual person's skepticism and desire for deep understanding, which usually will reveal such falsehoods.