This is also a bit of a pet peeve of mine too. I surely learned a lot of "knowledge" during my PhD, but really what makes me an expert in my subject is less my ability to rattle off facts but

1. my ability to reason and understand the subject after a lot of experience working in it, and

2. the skills that I picked up during my PhD and afterwards.

I can really only "know" so much, but the skills that I developed help me get the right information without having to "know" it directly --- either by searching the literature, running a calculation or simulation, or performing an experiment. There are a lot of things that I have difficulty remembering but I only "know" them because I remember how to derive them and where they come from, etc. That's one of the reasons that I don't like the assertion that this model has ingested all of this knowledge and it is now an expert, because expertise goes beyond having knowledge. It's about developing a deeper understanding of a subject that only comes from actively engaging with it for a long time.