Neither will LLMs. That's not how their nondeterminism works.

> Someone who knows that 1 + 1 = 2 will not decide that it's suddenly 3 unless we start accounting for health problems.

And?

The p(that kind of error) is pretty small now. At what point does a probability coming out of an LLM look like "knowing", such that spitting out the wrong answer despite that probability looks like a health problem, a typo, or even just boredom? (Thinking of the Lizardman constant here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Lizardman%27s_Constant)

It's a continuum for both them and us, even if the mechanism is wildly different.

> Making mistakes is not the same as non-deterministic.

i.e. when the dismissal is "non-deterministic" when it should be "Making mistakes", is itself a mistake.

Lol, humans make such absurd mistakes (and worse) all the time through simple typos, which is effectively random. The key for 2 is right next to the key for 3, after all.

> Someone who knows that 1 + 1 = 2 will not decide that it's suddenly 3 unless we start accounting for health problems.

But this is plainly false. This kind of unforced error occurs all the time.

For example, once when I was in high school I traced an error in my math homework to an intermediate calculation of "2 + 2" as being "3". There was no reason.

What we can say about humans is that, if they know that 1 + 1 = 2, (a) they are unlikely to change their mind about this in any kind of lasting or permanent way, and (b) the rate at which they will mistakenly produce other values for 1 + 1 is very low. But it will happen occasionally, and when it does happen, "they just suddenly decided on the wrong value" is an extremely accurate description of what that looks like.