your follow-up makes no difference to the main point under discussion : if you ask two different llms about a legal fact pattern and they independently reference the same law, then it is, in fact, more likely that the law is more relevant to the fact pattern than if only one llm mentioned it.

My point was that a human can say "sure laws say this but how about it's a screwed up thing and we change it for the better" and LLM will just do whatever is the highest in probability space