I imagine professional philosophers ...
shudder in the face of the ludicrous claims of the AI cabal and good many of the counterclaims of the justifiably sceptical critics.
After a few thousand years their discipline is still working on questions of knowledge, belief, existence etc etc (hint: 42 isn't the answer.)
Just a short question like "what precisely is a fact ?" - and how do you distinguish a fact from a non-fact - clearly don't have single, simple knockdown answers. Unless you are a fundamentalist nutjob, facts are clearly not eternal absolute verities.
If in trying to define a fact you grasp at the straw of "truth" you soon discover not only are you out of your depth, you are now actually drowning.
To my mind the question of what constitutes knowledge is even more vexed. Clearly not just a collection of facts - an encyclopedia is hardly knowledgeable.
Asserting AI/LLM is capable of "knowing" or "believing", or even possessing a decision procedure that can discriminate between knowledge and belief — is completely delusional or from a mendacious vendor of oleum serpentis.†
† Ne inducas nos in temptationem sed libera nos a malo.