For example, I've done interviews for various media outlets and often enough they report I said the opposite of what I said, similar to the reasons you mentioned above.
Errors then are not an accident. They start the interview with a conclusion to get to, whatever you say will be cut and pasted to push the narrative.
Now maybe I'm wrong about this, but even if so I think it's still a risky change. We have understood human error for pretty much all of recorded history. We have a very poor understanding of computer error, to the point that there are some legal systems where computer software is assumed to be correct by default.
Courts and laws around the world are designed to cope with humans making mistakes and lying.
Sure, but then again humans are all independent and biased in different ways while the automated tools we replace them with will be making the same mistake and using the same bias over and over again.
One is a single entity, the other is a multitude of independent entities.