You don’t need to be qualified to be unsure about something. Being unsure is a healthy position because it’s an acknowledgment that you don’t know something entirely. Which can also means you have an open mind to learn more about that subject.

Being certain, on the other hand, requires an assumption that you are a subject expert.

But this is all moot anyway because you’re constructing an elaborate strawman here. The original point was that the GP (possibly you?) trusts SWE more than others because they built AI. And I said building databases doesn’t make you smart at the subject loaded into the database.

Really, this whole premise of SWEs assuming expertise on subjects they’ve trained AI on says more about the Dunning-Kruger effect than anything of value in our little tangent.

You can be skeptical in wrong ways. See solipsism for example.

Typically when I get genuine responses to the question, "What would change your mind?" it's an incredibly high bar that is practically impossible to achieve. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but when skepticism is applied without deliberation, it supports biases rather than truth.

So yes, you do need to be qualified to be skeptical, SWEs doubly so.