[CooCooCaCha]

There's a difference between statistics informing logical reasoning and statistics being used as a replacement for logic.

Running a red light can be perfectly logical. In the mathematics of logic there is no rule that you must obey the law. It can be a calculated risk.

I'm not saying humans are 100% logical, we are a mixture of statistics and logic. What I'm talking about is what we are capable of VS what LLM's are capable of.

I'll give an example. Let's say you give me two random numbers. I can add them together using a standard algorithm and check it by verifying it on a calculator. Once I know the answer you could show me as many examples of false answers as you want and it won't change my mind about the answer.

In LLMs there is clear evidence that the only reason it gets right answers is those answers happen to be more frequent in the dataset. Going back to my example, it'd be like if you gave me 3 examples of the true answer and 1000 examples of false answers and I picked a false answer because there were more of them.