I haven't made any claim that humans are special. And your claim, in your own words, is that if mistakes are made in logical deduction, that means that the agent involved must ultimately be employing statistical auto-complete? No idea why you would think that, or what else you want to conclude from it, but it's obviously not true. Just consider an agent that inverts every truth value you try to put into the knowledge base and then proceeds as usual with anything you ask it to do. It makes mistakes and has nothing to at all do with probability, therefore some systems that make mistakes aren't LLMs. QED?
Ironically the weird idea that "all broken systems must be broken in the same way" or even "all broken systems use equivalent mechanics" is exactly the type of thing you get by leaning on a language model that really isn't even trying to understand the underlying logic.
> I haven't made any claim that humans are special
The whole context of this thread is that humans are "reasoning" and LLMs are just statistical syntax predictors, which is "lesser", ie. humans are special.
> And your claim, in your own words, is that if mistakes are made in logical deduction, that means that the agent involved must ultimately be employing statistical auto-complete?
No, I said humans would be employing statistical auto-complete. The whole point of this argument is to show that this allegedly non-statistical, non-syntactic "reasoning" that humans are doing that supposedly makes them superior to statistical, syntactic processing that LLMs are doing, is mostly a fiction.
> leaning on a language model that really isn't even trying to understand the underlying logic.
You don't know that the LLM is not understanding. In fact, for certain rigorous formal definitions of "understanding", it absolutely does understand something. You can only reliably claim LLMs don't understand everything as well as some humans.
Ironically the weird idea that "all broken systems must be broken in the same way" or even "all broken systems use equivalent mechanics" is exactly the type of thing you get by leaning on a language model that really isn't even trying to understand the underlying logic.