Sure it can. As an example, d'Alembert "proved" the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra but based his work on some assumptions that made the proof incorrect. So did Euler.
Correct proofs came much later thanks to Lagrange and (especially) Gauss.
Problem is: a smart guy can catch a malfunctioning in another smart guy's line of reason. Can they catch an error in 200TB of proof?
Yes, you could either put an army of people on picking through the data, or write another software program that also picks through the data
In either case, we are talking about two different things. The initial discussion was about probabilistic theorems, which is the idea of throwing a bunch of tests at a problem and getting a sense of how likely it is that the theorem is correct vs going through the entire space of a problem through brute force.
Then somehow the discussion changed to whether people and computers can be trusted to not make mistakes when brute forcing the problem space, which is an entirely different subject from the topic of this post.
