Despite my attempts, it is obvious that you are incapable of recognizing the difference between what someone says and what someone writes as an utterance for a character they created.

If you're going to quote from Douglas Adams A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy then you attribute it to "Douglas Adams, A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy."

If you're going to quote from plain old Douglas Adams, as in something he said himself as his own opinion, rather than wrote as dialog for a character, then you just attribute it to "Douglas Adams."

That is the way quotations work.

Over and out.

Not. Relevant. Adams wrote the words. That doesn't mean he "said" them in the sense of expressing his own opinion.

See above.

If Douglas Adams wrote the words a character said in one of his novels, then he himself did not say those words, the character did. I can't make it any clearer.

But I'll try. Shakespeare once wrote dialog for one of his characters (in Henry IV Part Two, I think) who said "The first thing we do, let's kill. all the lawyers." Did Shakespeare say that, or the character in the play? The answer is: the latter. The character was a terrorist, and he spoke in the context of overthrowing the government. Shakespeare would not have agreed with that opinion, but the character in the play did.

I repeat: authors are not responsible for what their characters say, although they may or may not agree with those characters.

LoL, this. But to be pedantic: Douglas Adams didn't say this. A character in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy said this. Douglas Adams is not responsible for what his characters say -- although he no doubt would agree with this one.

This. Also, note this article, which talks about how Republicans of the past would have embraced the ethos of Superman.

It's sad that we now live in a world where giving a shit about someone makes you suspect.

LoL yeah. He also thinks they cause cancer.

I'd say towards Santa Clara (Nvidia) with a nod over your shoulder to Redmond (Microsoft). But stay tuned.

I'm not moving any goalposts. (You seem to be doing that, though.) My claim from the beginning is that some mental-health issues can be cured. And some can't. The existence of incurable mental-health issues does not refute my point.

The person I mentioned does indeed exist. This person took meds and got talk-therapy. Both appeared to help. This person is now free of symptoms, several years after stopping therapy and meds. Meds are often used in a way that supports therapy, rather than addressing a chronic condition. Therefore the patient may not need to take the meds indefinitely. I think this was the case here.

Thanks for this. That's one study, but I can accept that positive outcomes are not universal or guaranteed.

Nevertheless, positive outcomes happen. And that's why I claim mental-health issues can be cured, even if they aren't always cured.

I know this is only one data-point, but I am personally acquainted with someone who had a history of serious depression and anxiety. This person underwent talk-therapy and medication, and is fine today, no longer on meds, with no hint of a problem. Now, maybe the condition was self-limiting. However, this person had no progress until the treatment started, so I would conclude that the treatment did something to help cure the condition.

Not all mental-health conditions are chronic. They may be curable or self-limiting.

I wish you good luck with your challenges, whatever they are.

Depression and anxiety, for two. IANAP, perhaps a real one can comment further.

We don't know how to cure all mental-health problems. However, many can be treated successfully (e.g., with medications and/or talk therapy) to the point that relapse is unlikely. If that's not a cure, I don't know what is.

From TFS:

Well, this surprised me a little. I can imagine that part of the AI's training-data may have included content from conspiracy theorists, but don't the creators of ChatGPT try to filter that out?

On a contrasting note, YouTuber SciManDan recently debunked flat-earther David Weiss' "arguments" with ChatGPT about flat-earth evidence. Worth a look, but TL/DW: Weiss kept insisting on promoting nonsensical physics arguments about why an atmosphere can't exist beside a vacuum without a container, and ChatGPT politely but consistently pushed back with correct explanations that refuted his arguments. So far SciManDan has three installments covering Weiss' "discussion" with ChatGPT. He now posts daily, so perhaps there will be more soon.

Yep. Easy to miss. Have a nice day.

Before you accuse someone of not being able to read, you should check your own work. The woman mentioned at the top of TFS is Jessica Lindsey, who works at Concentrix. The woman mentioned in the last paragraph (quoted in your OP) is Sarah, a pseudonym, working not for Concentrix, but "in benefits fraud-prevention for the US government" -- not debt-collection.