[coldtea]

>and the point here is we should not ignore further subtleties, intent, internal process, qualia, etc because they are extremely relevant to the issue at hand.

But the point is those are only relevant when trying to understand GPTs internal motivations (or lack thereof).

If we care for the practical effects of what it's spits out (the function the same as if GPT has lied to us), then calling them "hallucinations" is as good as calling them "lying".

>We do care how it got to produce incorrect information.

Well, not when trying to access whether it's true or false, and whether we should just blindly trust it.

From that practical aspect, most people care about (than about whether it has "intentions"), we can ignore any of its internal mechanics.

Thus treating it like it "beware, as it tends to lie", will have the same utility for most laymen (and be a much easier shortcut) than any more subtle formulation.