Doe not following a moral rule imply not understanding it? In this case, many, maybe most humans are "not intelligent". Human can admit it when what they did wasn't moral and so can LLMs.

>> Plenty of humans know "cheating is wrong" but still cheat.

> And we create consequences for them...

That seems supremely ... irrelevant to the question of "does knowing or following moral make you intelligent". If we create consequences for LLMs, would that make them intelligent?

I mean, your claim is a common argument that appeared long before the present wave of AIs. What I see is people needing to defend the belief that human society is based on morality. "People follow moral laws ... except when they don't" and then "we teach people morality... and worst people often use that to exploit the average people" "There are consequences for immoral behavior ... for those with little power while those with much power rise further breaking rules".

I mean human goodness is great, I encourage it. But it's not the present of human society. For that, we'd need different structure.

> Doe not following a moral rule imply not understanding it?

No. People definitely do immoral things knowing they are immoral.

But if you are incapable of understanding anything, as I believe LLMs are, then you are incapable of understanding what is moral and what is immoral. This is why we have carve-outs in the law for insanity or cognitive impairment.

> In this case, many, maybe most humans are "not intelligent". Human can admit it when what they did wasn't moral and so can LLMs.

You can teach a parrot to curse, but that doesn't mean it's angry.