Firstly, there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever for that hypothesis. But secondly, this is also poor reasoning. Your argument boils down to implying that if it's good at X, then there might be a bias in its favour with respect to X that makes it a poor judge of whether it's reasoning. By extension, making that argument engages in the logical fallacy of begging the question (assuming the conclusion).

> Why is setting bar high absurd? It is the same way I demand my pocket calculator to be so much better than humans at calculating things.

This is also poor reasoning. We demand the pocket calculator be better because otherwise we would have no use for it. It would be logically invalid to argue that if it was merely as capable as a human, maybe one that is not very good but still able to calculate, that it is unable to calculate at all.