I guess I am both agreeing and disagreeing. The exact same problem is true for words in a book. Are the words in a lexicon true, false, or do they not have a truth value?
If you're comparing the output of an LLM to a lexicon, you're agreeing with the person you originally replied to. He's arguing that an LLM is incapable of being true or false because of the manner in which its utterances are created, i.e. not by a mind.
This would be unlike a human, who can be right or wrong independently of an utterance, because they have a mind and beliefs.
And of course a thing in and of itself, be it an apple, a dog or an LLM, can’t be true or false.
That classical or quantum mechanics are at all useful depends on the truthfulness of their propositions. If we cared about the process then we let the non-intuitive nature of quantum mechanics enter into the judgement of the usefulness of the science.
The better question to ask is if a tool, be it a book, a thermometer, or an LLM are useful. Error rates affect utility which means that distinctions between correct and incorrect signals are more important than attempts to define arbitrary labels for the tools themselves.
You’re attempting to discount a tool based on everything other than the utility.