An mp3 player repeating something does not believe it.
There is no way even at any level of abstraction and squinting just right to use a term like that for what chatgpt is or does. It's fancy auto-complete. Literally matching and mashing up patterns against other writings by probability. That's it. Auto-complete is neither understanding nor believing.
Basically, you reject using any normal words for intelligence when discussing an AI, even when it's a metaphor, or clearly labeled as not being literally true.
I'm not sure how that's productive, but feel free.
I reject that it's productive to use the wrong words for things especially when a lot of people already have practically no grasp of it and are already primed to have the wrong understanding, and using the wrong words only facilitates that wrong understanding. I'm quite sure how that's counter-productive, and please do not feel free.
To add, put it this way, it's not pedantry: I really do not need my mother in law thinking that she is interacting with an entity when it turns up in some interface she uses. And she does, or is about 1mm from doing so.
That's the harm. "quacks like a duck" is not good enough to just let people operate as though it's a duck, and they are, and it's not ok and it's not harmless and it's not their own fault, it's yours and mine.
There is no way even at any level of abstraction and squinting just right to use a term like that for what chatgpt is or does. It's fancy auto-complete. Literally matching and mashing up patterns against other writings by probability. That's it. Auto-complete is neither understanding nor believing.