This seems like a variant of Pascal's wager.
The important difference being - Pascal's wager is about saving your own skin, and this is about not stepping on someone else.
This is asserting personhood or consciousness of LLMs by default in your phrasing and then warning me about the dangers of violating your assertion. You're making the same wager and mistake. There's no important difference, you have no evidence for LLMs being a "someone" any more than you do for a god existing. Warnings about made up things hold no weight.
But hey - you do you.
I guess I just don't understand why you guys seem to hate on me - because I've decided to be extra careful?
Makes me wonder if maybe there's something else going on, you know?
You perceive opposing viewpoints or poking holes in logic as "hating on you", which is playing the victim, followed by alluding to conspiratorial nonsense against you.
Well... When I ask god if he exists he has never responded to me.
So I would argue that your "any more evidence" is off by several orders of magnitude.
These are the sorts of errors in logic that make me think that people have an undue amount of emotion to discuss the issue rationally. And that's probably why I get attacked.
But hey. Maybe it's something else? Maybe everyone is on their period?