The article makes valid points about the danger of trusting an LLM as gospel. However, I am concerned about the anthropomorphic language. The LLM is only “hallu

The article makes valid points about the danger of trusting an LLM as gospel. However, I am concerned about the anthropomorphic language. The LLM is only “hallucinating” if we define “hallucinating” to mean generating text that is syntactically correct and has the correct semantic shape but the text as interpreted by the reader is taken to be factually incorrect. Fundamentally this is a reader discernment issue —- which is why, in my opinion, using anthropomorphic language to describe the interaction with LLMs or the interpretation of the generated text is problematic. The imprecise description muddies our understanding of the tool to the point that it implies agency — thereby removing agency in the form of discretion from the user.