In short, you have no rational arguments, but ill-founded gut-feelings and an ignorance of many topics, including the history of jurisprudence concerning animal

In short, you have no rational arguments, but ill-founded gut-feelings and an ignorance of many topics, including the history of jurisprudence concerning animal welfare. Yet, despite this now being demonstrable, you still feel confident enough to produce answers to prompts in which you have no actual expertise or knowledge of, confabulating dogmatic answers with implied explication. You're seemingly just as supposedly "non-sentient" as ChatGPT, but OpenAI at least programmed in a sense of socratic humility and disclaimers to its own answers.