Yes, colloquially what it does is hallucinate all the time, and sometimes it lucid. But more factually no, it doesn't hallucinate because there is no "it" there, it's not conscious and you need to have a brain, to hallucinate.
There's no "there" there.
That is the whole of my point: we're using the wrong labels to describe what is happening.
When it comes to explaining and describing "it's like" is one of the WORST ways to go. explanation by analogy or metaphor is a trap. "atoms are like billiard balls BZZZT next" "cells are little bags of water BZZZT next" "panadol 'kills' the pain BZZT no, it doesn't kill anything next"
I predict acceptance will go the way the ether disappeared-- advancing one funeral at a time.
This coining terms of art thing isn't uncommon. Think "brutalist architecture" and remind yourself its "en brute" == raw from the french. It has nothing to do with how "brutal" people think concrete is.
That's not the full story. See https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/b/brutalism
> The term was coined by the British architectural critic Reyner Banham to describe the approach to building particularly associated with the architects Peter and Alison Smithson in the 1950s and 1960s.The term originates from the use, by the pioneer modern architect and painter Le Corbusier, of ‘beton brut’ – raw concrete in French. Banham gave the French word a punning twist to express the general horror with which this concrete architecture was greeted in Britain.
Dale Spender wrote about the unfortunate use of killing processes or aborting runtime jobs.