They're things we are intentionally engineering in our own image, based on massive statistical analysis of our own actions and behavior. So what's there to not understand? If this wasn't the case, that would be much weirder.

They're also explicitly designed to not work on a rigid system of rules. That's the entire point of this field of AI. If you want AI that follows explicit rules to the letter, expert systems are still alive and kicking.

> An LLM isn't human. > Why is it not reasonable to expect it to adhere to rules better than a human does?

It seems unreasonable to expect a system that you say isn't human, which I don't disagree with, to behave "better" than the thing you say it isn't.

In one breath you invite comparison, while at the same time you seem to be denying that same comparison.

> It seems wild to me that folks are shrugging their shoulders at that.

I'm not shrugging my shoulders simply by providing explanations, I would ask that you stop using such rhetoric.