> If an AI correctly guesses the outcome of a dice roll, it does not mean it knows the outcome in advance. Being correct is a necessary element of knowledge, bu

> If an AI correctly guesses the outcome of a dice roll, it does not mean it knows the outcome in advance. Being correct is a necessary element of knowledge, but far from sufficient. If we "know in advance", why wouldn't the AI? If the AI doesn't "know in advance", why would we? When I'm asked a question, the response and thoughts around it emerge only at that point, and from thin air. I certainly don't trawl an internal, constant knowledge bank of retrievable facts, and the time of day or preexisting conversation may affect whether or not I successfully "know" something in a particular conversation, despite having learnt it. At the same time, some things I "know" will just be wrong - the memory distorted or mixed with another, the whole thing imagined, or even just a failed recollection. And no, I certainly don't know if it has gone wrong unless it happens to result in e.g., contradictions I notice myself. These kinds of justifications for why AI doesn't "know" always imply that the process of human thought emergence is well established and understood and easily differentiated, which just isn't the case. There most certainly are more differences than similarities between AI and the human mind, but I dont think the concept of knowledge is necessarily one of them.