Are you sure?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7O1Qa4Zb4s
There seems to be no better definition for what matter is than for what consciousness is. Hence, there is no reason to believe it's real or required to discern true from false as well? As long as that's the case, I'd be a bit more careful with statements like these.
If we can be sure of one thing we know, it's nothing.
GPT doesn't sit there pondering consciousness and deciding, emotionally, that it thinks it's bullshit. It most certainly doesn't then decide, on its own volition, to go out into the web and comment this to others for the sake of debating them.
It doesn't sit there contemplating anything by its own volition unless its asked to. Regardless of what consciousness really is at its heart (I admit that we still don't fully know), it's a distinct self-motivated thing that we can see in our human selves and which is seen in no LLM except as a simulation produced by specific prompts.
Your first statement was that "they don't know true and false, because they don't know anything in the cognitive sense of using innate emotional and logical reasoning (faulty or not) to come to a self-directed conclusion of their own."
You haven't yet proved that assertion.
I can write a program that will print out infinite number of no repeating true statements.
They respond to prompts, scan through their data and give answers based on what their programming for probability dictates.
Humans seem to do the same thing much of the time but beneath even the most half-baked human reasoning is a self-directed sense of the world that no LLM has. The AI woo on HN is quite strong, so many will probably disagree for all kinds of shallow reasons of semantics, but even the creators of LLMs don't claim they possess anything resembling consciousness, which is necessary for understanding notions of truth and falsehood.