Another one I've noticed is using "I've" as a contraction in e.g. "I've a meeting to attend". Seems totally reasonable but for some reason native speakers just don't use it that way.
I like this analogy a lot for non-technical...erm...audiences. I do hope that anyone using this analogy will pair it with loud disclaimers about not anthropomorphizing LLMs; they do not "lie" in any real sense, and I think framing things in those terms can give the impression that you should interpret their output in terms of "trust". The emergent usefulness of LLMs is (currently at least) fundamentally opaque to human understanding and we shouldn't lead people to believe otherwise.
These qualifiers would seem to belie the whole argument. Surely the volume of HFT arbitrage is some large multiple of what would be necessary to provide commercial liquidity with an acceptable spread?