Like you said, it might be impossible to avoid ascribing things like intentionality to it

That's not what I meant. When you say "it makes stuff up" you are describing how the model statistically predicts the expected output.

You know that. I know that.

That's the asterisk. The more in-depth explanation a lot of people won't bother getting far enough to learn about. Someone who doesn't read that far into it, can read that same phrase and assume that we're discussing what type of personality LLMs exhibit, that they are "liars". But they'd be wrong. Neither of us is attributing intention to it or discussing what kind of "person" it is, in reality we're referring to the fact that it's "just" a really complex probability engine that can't "know" anything.

No matter what word we use, if it is pre-existing, it will come with pre-existing meanings that are kinda right, but also not quite, requiring that everyone involved in a discussion know things that won't be explained every time a term or phrase is used.

The language isn't "inaccurate" between you and me because you and I know the technical definition, and therefore what aspect of LLMs is being discussed.

Terminology that is "accurate" without this context does not and cannot exist, short of coming up with completely new words.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hallucinate