Earlier quoted context omitted.
That large language models are stochastic parrots is not a bias, it's a fact. You feed it a very large amount of structured data and then put up a question which it'll answer with a series of those which are most likely to follow. There is nothing else .
Do you have any evidence that human minds work substantially different from that?
> There was a boy called Eustace Clarence Scrubb, and he almost deserved it
> Everything starts somewhere, although many physicists disagree.
> It was a nice day. All the days had been nice. There had been rather more than seven of them so far, and rain hadn't been invented yet
> My father had a face that could stop a clock.
> It is important, when killing a nun, to ensure that you bring an army of sufficient size.
> In the myriadic year of our Lord—the ten thousandth year of the King Undying, the kindly Prince of Death!— Gideon Nav packed her sword, her shoes, and her dirty magazines, and she escaped from the House of the Ninth.
There's just no end to these.
And, of course, science is full of these too, one that jumps to mind is Shinichi Mochizuki's claimed proof of the ABC conjecture which has been proven flawed as it often happens but it was certainly a credible proof despite written in a language no mathematician have ever seen.