Sorry, I'm not following your point.
I believe vba616 is trying to point out that if we consider AI systems that
generate plausible-sounding responses to be "bullshitting," then we should
also acknowledge that humans who do the same are not necessarily
distinguishable from "intelligent" humans. In other words, both AI systems
and humans can produce seemingly coherent responses without necessarily
having a deep understanding of the subject matter.
It raises the question of whether we should hold AI systems to the same
standard as humans when it comes to evaluating their output or
understanding. If we accept that humans can sometimes provide plausible yet
shallow answers, should we not also accept that AI systems, like LLMs, can
do the same?We get served bullshit and fiction-presented-as-fact every day from humans. To make matters worse, alot of these lies are not even the result of an error. A lot of them are deliberate, to further some sort of agenda.
Yes, AI can fantasize about facts. Yes AI isn't perfect. But at least, when it does spew misinformation, it is virtually always the result of an error. When an AI lies, it's because of errors, not to sell us something, or get our vote, or talk itself out of something.