Does this increase anyone else's sense that LLMs are actually modeling something similar to the way humans think? It certainly does for me.
I find that negations/conjugations of negations are surprisingly difficult for to parse. Beyond two negations at most, I can feel myself having to switch into "code" mode, where I'm explicitly casing out the booleans, to understand them.
Obviously the examples given in the article are simpler than double negations, but it feels very consistent with the idea that "negations are an inherently hard part of language processing".