A fast-moving debate has emerged over whether LLMs are bullshitters in any significant sense. This talk develops an account of LLM bullshit that, in contrast to the most influential existing accounts, is entirely output-based. I begin with an overview of the best-known treatment of LLM bullshit, due to Hicks, Humphries, and Slater, along with some of the main critical reactions to their views. One response, from Gunkel and Coghlan, argues that Hicks et al.’s process-based account should be replaced by an output-based one. I take this response to be compelling, though it is notable that Gunkel and Coghlan do not attempt to develop a detailed output-based account. To fill this gap, I review Florian Cova’s recent output-based account of bullshit, explain how it can be streamlined, and show how it can be applied to LLMs. The main upshots are: (i) some but not all LLM outputs are bullshit; (ii) LLMs engage in the activity of bullshitting sometimes but not always; and (iii) LLMs are bullshitters in only a rather weak sense.
