But that's just saying the same thing without being honest! The refinement is in hiding the fact that any dissident view may remain a minority view and hence not consensus reality.
One counter-example can destroy a whole argument - NOT that it has to wait for that counter-argument to spread globally.

It is not a logic engine, nor a reasoning engine - the Wolfram interview was far clearer on this, then again, Wolfram may be much smarter and been at this for some 30 years! What appears to be reasoning is merely the language responses it generates - so it's the logic of grammar being hidden and pretending to be "reasoning". As Wolfram said, this is somewhat like Aristotles forms of arguments coming out as emergent forms from grammar.