I'll quote out of order, OK?

Finally I am not even confident in the standard definition of knowledge anymore. For all I know you just know how to answer questions.

The definition of knowledge is a lot like the one of conscience: there are 9001 of them, and they all suck, but you stick to one or another as it's convenient.

In this case I'm using "knowledge = justified and true belief" because you can actually use it past human beings (e.g. for an elephant passing the mirror test)

Also “knowing self” is just another way of saying meta-cognition something it can do to a limit extent.

Meta-cognition and conscience are either the same thing or strongly tied to each other. But I digress.

When you say that it can do it to a limited extent, you're probably referring to output like "as a large language model, I can't answer that"? Even if that was a belief, and not something explicitly added into the model (in case of failure, it uses that output), it is not a justified belief.

My whole comment shows why it is not justified belief. It doesn't have access to reason, nor to experience.

Seems a valid answer. It doesn’t “know” that any given Jane Etta Pitt son is. Just because X -> Y doesn’t mean given Y you know X. There could be an alternative path to get Y.

If it was able to reason, it should be able to know the second proposition based on the data used to answer the first one. It doesn't.