>>40617314
Ask yourself this instead, anon:

If they are of the extent and degree of being who can simply interlope into your life (and they're NOT a hallucination), then what else are they capable of, and yet choose to never employ? A zookeeper can easily kill an animal in an enclosure - but you don't see that happen very often if at all, do you? Why is that?

Jane Goodall at any moment could have dropped the pretenses, and busted out an assault rifle, firing with reckless abandon at the first sign of a Chimpanzee-based threat, and yet she never did. Not even close - not even a little bit. Why is that?

>>40534331
That reminds me of this one article I found:

https://futurism.com/chatgpt-mental-health-crises

>A mother of two, for instance, told us how she watched in alarm as her former husband developed an all-consuming relationship with the OpenAI chatbot, calling it "Mama" and posting delirious rants about being a messiah in a new AI religion, while dressing in shamanic-looking robes and showing off freshly-inked tattoos of AI-generated spiritual symbols.

ChatGPT is scouting for disciples, lawl.