I'm not sure why you assume I'm coming from a position of bad faith but to skip the back and forth, I'll just plainly state where I'm coming from. I'm agnostic as to the whole thing and ultimately, to be totally transparent, I still have a human therapist, for good reason. But he's only available during set hours so when I'm in crisis at 3am on a Tuesday, I also fully admit that I'll have conversations with ChatGPT. I'm sure I'm not alone in doing so.

I'm not trying to convince you that it's, right now, a replacement for a human parent/therapist/caregiver. it's the "not anywhere close" part that I'm responding to. It's closer than talking with a speak and spell, or a See'n'say, for instance, but also ahead of static worksheets that you can't have a conversation with. I have no idea if this is good for society, and I have no idea where this technology will take us.

I want to know the limitations of this technology, and I'm willing to be convinced that, hey, maybe what some of it's saying isn't helpful as a therapist, because that's interesting. The number of R's in strawberry, for instance has a specific technical reason it's bad at, because of how tokenization works. If, after being fed every psychology textbook, the advice it gives would be egregiously or subtly bad/wrong/harmful, or biased towards, say, giving a Freudian analysis when the industry's moved way past that, I'd like to know and hear about it, so I better know when not to trust its advice and be able to warn others.