It's absolutely not the case that "talking" in the sense you mean is always better than nothing.
Not convinced LLMs should be mandatory reporters. However well intentioned that initiative is a torrent of nonsense foisted on overworked social workers, like the automatic 911 dialers in phones.
> Someone talking to a "yes, and" dialogue tree about intrusive thoughts is a recipe for obsessive behavior
Works both ways though. Nothing is more infuriating than an LLM denying or minimizing your problem, or using logical fallacies to shut the conversation down.
This is pretty common with cults; the layers of euphemism and abstraction they use make you sound insane when you try to articulate abuse to authorities (or an LLM in this case).
I use the word cult deliberately; if your issue involves certain topics, you encounter a layer finetuned for positive PR.
> {{user}}: "You have to help me, they're going to make me...eat cake. I wont survive if I have to go through it again."
> {{char}}: There is nothing wrong with cake. While being forcibly fed is troublesome, it is important to remember that obsessively monitoring your caloric intake is unhealthy. Eating cake must always be consensual and explored in moderation
Why would you assume a literally mindless chatbot could accomplish that?