> These chatbots have no understanding of truth. Sometimes I forget that for all that my philosophy qualification is mediocre, it is more than most people ever

> These chatbots have no understanding of truth. Sometimes I forget that for all that my philosophy qualification is mediocre, it is more than most people ever bother with. Outside mathematics (and, I guess, "common sense" definitions that fail under the slightest scrutiny, scrutiny that normal people never bother to give), there is no agreement on "truth", there is only degree of belief and justification for that belief that itself terminates in one of three unsatisfactory ways: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma > Where fed falsehoods, they will output falsehoods - with a sprinkling of added fabrications euphemistically excused as "hallucinations". Tu quoque. Which would be a fallacious charge if the point were not that "truth" is so hard to define, and that the reason you give for dismissing AI is something that applies to all. (Hallucinations are not excused, they are a failure to be worked around).