The authors of the text the model was trained on certainly had intentions. Many of those are going to be preserved in the output.
From now on I'll listen for the subtle popping sounds as these BBs get instantiated and de-instantiated all around me...
Of course a philosopher can object that (1) these BBs are on a substrate that's richer than they are so aren't "really" BBs and (2) they often leave traces that are available to them in later instantiations which again classical BBs can't. So maybe make up another name -- but a great way to think.
Chess move training data is much more likely to consist of examples of people trying to win than it is to consist of random legal or even illegal moves. You could argue that the intention belongs to the people providing the input and not the LLM, but that seems like a distinction without a difference.