Logician here. We're well aware that "A=B" is not a good formalization of the colloquial/grammarical "A is B", we don't formalize it that way, and we don't regard "if A is B then B is A" is a truth of formal logic.
The people making the argument about reversal curses are not logicians, and most of them don't know anything more about formal logic than what anyone would pick up in an undergraduate "Intro to Proofs" course.
That said, the semantics of the word "is" in natural language really doesn't matter in this debate. The semantics is a red herring, if you will (while a red herring is not semantics).
After all, LLMs cannot learn "the quantity B is mathematically equal to A" from examples of "the quantity A is mathematically equal to B" either, even when the rest of the corpus clearly explains that this _is_ in fact always reversible.
The people making the argument about reversal curses are not logicians, and most of them don't know anything more about formal logic than what anyone would pick up in an undergraduate "Intro to Proofs" course.
That said, the semantics of the word "is" in natural language really doesn't matter in this debate. The semantics is a red herring, if you will (while a red herring is not semantics).
After all, LLMs cannot learn "the quantity B is mathematically equal to A" from examples of "the quantity A is mathematically equal to B" either, even when the rest of the corpus clearly explains that this _is_ in fact always reversible.