Is that example representative for the LLM tasks for which we seek explainability ?

Are we holding LLMs to a higher standard than people?

Ideally yes, LLMs are tools that we expect to work, people are inherently fallible and (even unintentionally) deceptive. LLMs being human-like in this specific way is not desirable.

Then I think you'll be very disappointed. LLMs aren't in the same category as calculators, for example.

I have no illusions on LLMs, I have been working with them since og BERT, always with these same issues and more. I'm just stating what would be needed in the future to make them reliably useful outside of creative writing & (human-guided & checked) search.

If an LLM provides an incorrect/orthogonal rhetoric without a way to reliably fix/debug it it's just not as useful as it theoretically could be given the data contained in the parameters.

Do not lose the original point: some systems have a goal to sound plausible, while some have a goal to say the truth. Some systems, when asked "where have you been", will reply "at the baker's" because it is a nice narrative in their "novel writing, re-writing of reality", some other will check memory and say "at the butcher's", where they have actually been.

When people invent explicit reasons on why they turned left or right, those reasons remain hypotheses. The clumsy will promote those hypotheses to beliefs. The apt will keep the spontaneous ideas as hypotheses, until the ability to assess them comes.

Everybody promotes these sorts of hypotheses to beliefs because it's not a conscious decision you are aware of. It's not about being clumsy or apt. You don't have much control over it.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3196841/

https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/25987577/Split_Brain.pdf

It does not matter, that there may be a tendency towards bad thinking: what matters is the possibility of proper thinking and the training towards it (becoming more and more proficient at it and practicing it constantly, having it as your natural state; in automation, implementing it in the process).

What you control is the intentional revision of thought.

(I am acquainted with earlier studies about the corpus callosum but I do not know why you would mention that, what it would prove: maybe you could be clearer? I do not see how it could affect the notion of critical thinking.)

I've explained it the best i can in the other comment. But you keep making the mistake that this is just a culprit of 'bad thinking' or 'intentional revision of thought' and while i'm not saying those things don't exist, It's not.

Not only are the rationalizations i'm talking about and which some of these papers allude to not intentional, they often happen without your conscious awareness.

On my having come with percussions at the strings meeting see the other reply.

I want to check the papers you proposed as soon as I will have the time: I find it difficult to believe that the conscious cannot intercept those "changes of mind" and correct them.

But please note: you are writing «Not only are ... not intentional»... Immature thought needs not to be intentional at all: it is largely spontaneous thought. But whether part of an intentional process ("let us ponder towards some goal"), or whether part of the subterranean functions, when it becomes visible (or «intercepted» as I wrote above), the trained mind looks at it with diffidence and asks questions about its foundations - intentionally, in the conscious, as a learnt process.