This is a better term and a suggestion I’ve already come across. If popularizers of science and tech as well as the AI space were to begin using the term consi

This is a better term and a suggestion I’ve already come across. If popularizers of science and tech as well as the AI space were to begin using the term consistently, the mainstream media would follow suit eventually. > LLMs have no sensors to experience the world with (other than their text input) and (probably) don’t even have a subjective experience in the same way humans do. Computers are not subjects, period, and to attribute intentionality to them is nothing short of projection and superstition. LLMs do not somehow transcend what a computer is. Computers are machines that transform conventional representations into other conventional representations, but these representations require human interpretation to have meaning (during which the representation is related to the conventionally assigned meaning which is itself the terminus that requires no further interpretation). That meaning or content is the intentionality in question. Your won’t find it in the machine, by definition. A source of popular misunderstanding probably comes from the confusion of what the computer is objectively doing with the metaphorical language being used to talk about it. Even “confabulation” is, strictly speaking, metaphorical or analogical, but within the analogical schema we’re using, it is a better fit than hallucination.