That's a total non sequitur. Training an LLM creates a reasoning engine. The residual knowledge from that does not compare to how humans learn knowledge.
Or think about an extreme case: an LLM that is trained on almost nothing combined with great RAG and context.
You can call it "technical pedantry", but what you actually meant is "precision and logic". Which is relevant to make a connection. Your new fallacy is called "ad hominem", btw.
And there is one more logical fallacy hidden in your message: training an LLM on a lot of data is not the same thing as then relying on that lossy data once training is done.