The corollary to this law is that if someone publishes a paper saying a thing is bad, there will be a flippant, dismissive response ignoring the content and con

The corollary to this law is that if someone publishes a paper saying a thing is bad, there will be a flippant, dismissive response ignoring the content and context, and using attacks on credibility to dismiss the findings. Given that we know significant numbers of people (mostly younger) are using LLMs as confidantes/therapists, to the extent that some have self-harmed following alleged prompting/encouragement by the LLMs, perhaps it would be useful to understand why this behaviour in the LLM emerges and whether it is linked to specific types of training data, and subsequently - maybe - figure out a way to mitigate these kinds of risks to human users. But hey, who doesn't enjoy giving a free kick to those that don't have our superior understanding, am I right?