> All processes in reality, everywhere, are probablistic.

If we want to go in philosophy then sure, you're correct, but this not what we're saying.

For example, an LLM is capable (and it's highly plausible for it to do so) of creating a reference to a non-existent source. Humans generally don't do that when their goal is clear and aligned (hence deterministic).

> Building a process to get a similar confidence in LLM output is part of the game.

Which is precisely my point. LLMs are supposed to be better than humans. We're (currently) shoehorning the technology.