In philosophy, the most common definition of knowledge is that it is true, justified belief[1]. In that definition knowledge certainly is predicated to be correct.
So is an argument that an LLM has no knowledge because it can't reason about justification of it's replies? I could see that. A lot of justification is just "because I read it in a book I trust" or "heard it from an authority" which isn't all that dissimilar to an LLM's outcome. An LLMs response is also justified by it's training, not unlike a person in a position of authority.
It doesn't challenge the idea that both a religious believer and non-believer have a certain knowledge of the world. These kinds of conflicts of knowledge are common, not just in religion, there is no single understanding of the world to reference against.
It doesn't challenge the idea that both a religious believer and non-believer have a certain knowledge of the world. These kinds of conflicts of knowledge are common, not just in religion, there is no single understanding of the world to reference against.