Earlier quoted context omitted.
You acknowledged above that consciousness isn't what LLM is and you likely understand that the poster was referring to that... The broad strokes you use here are exactly why discussing LLMs are hard. Sure some people dismiss them because it isn't general AI but having supporters dismiss any argument with "passes the Turning test" is equally useless.
No you have misunderstood. As I wrote above: "But you are not making a technical argument here unless you can define "understand" in technical terms. This is a matter of semantics." I said the nature of their argument is not technical, since they are not dealing with technical definitions, but I did not dismiss their argument altogether. I clarified and restated their own argument for them in clearer terms. LLMs are…
The core issue is their "knowledge" is too context sensitive.
Certainly humans are very context sensitive in our memories but we all have something akin to a "mental model" we can use to find things without that context.
In contrast LLM has knowledge defined by that context quite literally.
In either case my original point on using true and false is that LLM can hallucinate and on a fundamental design level there is little that can be done to stop it.