Often when asked for their reasoning people will post-hoc a rationale. This post-hoc rationale is usually not the actual reasoning used to originally arrive at

Often when asked for their reasoning people will post-hoc a rationale. This post-hoc rationale is usually not the actual reasoning used to originally arrive at a point-of-view though. In one study I recall reading about but can't find at the moment people filled out multiple-choice surveys, then were asked to justify certain choices that the researcher told them they had chosen. They justified these choices even though they had originally chosen a different answer. Also: https://skepticink.com/tippling/2013/11/14/post-hoc-rationalisation-reasoning-our-intuition-and-changing-our-minds/ https://skepticink.com/tippling/2013/11/14/post-hoc-rational... I presume to some extent this is also the case with ChatGPT. I presume this because I don't think most people would understand (or have the time to fully read) the actual process the LLM is using to arrive at a particular output from a particular input. The end result looks kind of human. But is this the post-hoc human, the bullshitter human, or is this something else entirely (i.e. pattern matching - effectively mimicry, not of the human providing the input, but of the corpus)?