I think this is different because it is observable. I can introspect and say:
- I read "The Great A.I. Awakening" in the NYT Magazine and thought it broadly constituted misinformation with respect to the mechanics and the significance of deep learning
- I accept pieces I read in the NYT Magazine that cover areas where I have no special familiarity as being generally true
But this makes no sense unless I think the NYT Magazine is somehow especially bad at specifically at those things with which I'm familiar.
Or alternatively I think of the Gell-Mann amnesia thing more as an argument than an observation – namely that if you find the quality of pieces where you can independently verify said quality to be low, then you should not assume that pieces where you can't independently verify the quality generally have higher quality.