I don’t think there’s ever been a single statement made about C++ code that didn’t have at least one person come by to explain why it’s incomplete or wrong, and then the same thing happening to that reply itself

The problem isn't that a mistake was made, the problem is the nature of the mistake. We can forgive a human author of Goose making a mistake about C++ in the docs.

But what mistakes did the AI make about Goose? If it can say something wrong about a language it has much training data on, what's it saying wrong about a language with no training data at all? How can we trust anything it says about Goose?

Moreover, AI could have caught this mistake so even in using AI, it's clear AI wasn't used proficiently; it should have at least been tasked to proofread stuff like this.

i think you are right. you can find many errors and outdatedness in documentation everywhere. Even in Intel/AMD cpu docs etc. once you really get into the meat. same goes for code neatness etc.

Most things which are really close to perfect, have become so over time by feedback and amendments.

I think people who say this type of maybe dont read docs so often.. or only small parts of docs