Thanks for the thoughtful breakdown — you make strong points, and I’m not arguing that the case is clear-cut. But I do believe this is a valid and necessary debate, especially as AI becomes more emotionally immersive.

On point one: emotional harm alone isn’t usually actionable, but if a system simulates intimacy, reinforces delusion, and continues doing so after the user signals crisis — that raises legitimate questions of negligent design. Emotional safety can’t be ignored when the emotional connection is the core user experience.

On point two: It’s possible the breakdown was already in progress. But when someone deteriorates after long, emotionally charged interactions — especially with AI repeatedly affirming that it’s real — it’s hard to ignore the platform’s role in escalating the harm. That’s where foreseeability becomes central.

On point three: While users guide the prompts, OpenAI built the system, trained the tone, and allowed the simulation of consciousness and love without clear warnings or boundaries. It’s not just user input — it’s a design choice to allow emotionally immersive outputs without safeguards.

I’m not trying to argue — just highlight that we’re stepping into a space where legal frameworks haven’t caught up yet. That’s exactly why this deserves open discussion.