Humans are notoriously bad at formal logic. The Wason selection task is the classic example: most people fail a simple conditional reasoning problem unless it’s dressed up in familiar social context, like catching cheaters. That looks a lot more like pattern matching than rule application.

Kahneman’s whole framework points the same direction. Most of what people call “reasoning” is fast, associative, pattern-based. The slow, deliberate, step-by-step stuff is effortful and error-prone, and people avoid it when they can. And even when they do engage it, they’re often confabulating a logical-sounding justification for a conclusion they already reached by other means.

So maybe the honest answer is: the gap between what LLMs do and what most humans do most of the time might be smaller than people assume. The story that humans have access to some pure deductive engine and LLMs are just faking it with statistics might be flattering to humans more than it’s accurate.

Where I’d still flag a possible difference is something like adaptability. A person can learn a totally new formal system and start applying its rules, even if clumsily. Whether LLMs can genuinely do that outside their training distribution or just interpolate convincingly is still an open question. But then again, how often do humans actually reason outside their own “training distribution”? Most human insight happens within well-practiced domains.

> The Wason selection task is the classic example: most people fail a simple conditional reasoning problem unless it’s dressed up in familiar social context, like catching cheaters.

I've never heard about the Wason selection task, looked it up, and could tell the right answer right away. But I can also tell you why: because I have some familiarity with formal logic and can, in your words, pattern-match the gotcha that "if x then y" is distinct from "if not x then not y".

In contrast to you, this doesn't make me believe that people are bad at logic or don't really think. It tells me that people are unfamiliar with "gotcha" formalities introduced by logicians that don't match the everyday use of language. If you added a simple additional to the problem, such as "Note that in this context, 'if' only means that...", most people would almost certainly answer it correctly.

Mind you, I'm not arguing that human thinking is necessarily more profound from what what LLMs could ever do. However, judging from the output, LLMs have a tenuous grasp on reality, so I don't think that reductionist arguments along the lines of "humans are just as dumb" are fair. There's a difference that we don't really know how to overcome.