There is more than one comment here asserting that the authors should have done a parallel comparison study against humans on the same question bank as if the study authors had set out to investigate whether humans or LLMs reason better in this situation.
The authors do include the claim that humans would immediately disregard this information and maybe some would and some wouldn't that could be debated and seemingly is being debated in this thread - but I think the thrust of the conclusion is the following:
"This work underscores the need for more robust defense mechanisms against adversarial perturbations, particularly, for models deployed in critical applications such as finance, law, and healthcare."
We need to move past the humans vs ai discourse it's getting tired. This is a paper about a pitfall LLMs currently have and should be addressed with further research if they are going to be mass deployed in society.
The authors do include the claim that humans would immediately disregard this information and maybe some would and some wouldn't that could be debated and seemingly is being debated in this thread - but I think the thrust of the conclusion is the following:
"This work underscores the need for more robust defense mechanisms against adversarial perturbations, particularly, for models deployed in critical applications such as finance, law, and healthcare."
We need to move past the humans vs ai discourse it's getting tired. This is a paper about a pitfall LLMs currently have and should be addressed with further research if they are going to be mass deployed in society.