>>55140949>more likelychatGPT doesn't look up statistics or anything anon, it literally just babbles some related stuff that sounds like something that a human being would say. Please look up how these AIs actually work, nothing they say is reliable, they aren't made to say factual things.
Even then, it said "generally", not "always".
I honest to god wonder how many more things the game has to throw at you other than the clumsy handwriting, the fact that it inspired the professor to become a researcher, the professors THEMSELVES saying "You see, this book captured my imagination when I read it as a child and has never let go," the shit with the title screen AND the thing I quoted in
>>55140216 to make you believe what it's very, very clearly trying to say. I have no clue how you can read all of these things and still go "Hmm, no, I think it's a totally different book actually, that definitely makes more sense the way the story is presented."
At this point I'll just let you believe whatever the hell you want to believe since you vehemently deny any evidence the game presents no matter what. I guess you think the game just bamboozles you for no reason and puts red herrings and 5 layers of hidden meanings to conceal the story the game tries to tell, even though children are supposed to understand it.
