Why is this not fundamentally a probabilistic bias?
When drawing an equivalence the burden of proof is on the person who believes two different things are the same. The null hypothesis is that different things are in fact different. Present a coherent argument & then you will see whether your question makes any sense or not.
It's not a static bias. I can experience new stuff, and update my biases.
LLMs need a retrain for that.
Perhaps you should define these terms so people aren't arguing against something you're not saying.