It would be reasonable to add a disclaimer. But as things stand I think it's fair to consider talking to ChatGPT to be the same as talking to a random person on the street, meaning normal free-speech protections would apply.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/article/self-diagnosing-with-a...
The researchers compared ChatGPT-4 with its earlier 3.5 version and found significant improvements, but not enough.
In one example, the chatbot confidently diagnosed a patient’s rash as a reaction to laundry detergent. In reality, it was caused by latex gloves — a key detail missed by the AI, which had been told the patient studied mortuary science and used gloves.
...
While the researchers note ChatGPT did not get any of the answers spectacularly wrong, they have some simple advice.
“When you do get a response be sure to validate that response,” said Zada.
Which should be standard advice in most situations.
That’s not how companies market AI though. And the models themselves tend to present their answers in a highly confident manner.
Without explicit disclaimers, a reasonable person could easily believe that ChatGPT is an authority in the law or medicine. That’s what moves the needle over to practicing the law/medicine without a license.