So does honesty. So it was still a false claim.
Dis/honesty certainly requires some intelligence to pass, but it is a low bar, and one which research has shown that LLMs can perform, e.g. this paper linked from another comment in this discussion: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.03518
Hard to take seriously any research based on the premise that LLMs were truthful in the first placr.
These chatbots have no understanding of truth. They simply parrot their inputs. Where fed falsehoods, they will output falsehoods - with a sprinkling of added fabrications euphemistically excused as "hallucinations".
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/Theories_of_truth
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).
The main problem with this claim of dishonesty is it promotes the false marketing claim that these stochastic parrots have intelligence.
It's not about the bread being honest with you.
Are you being serious?