Turns out they were both snails!

However, it's probably safe to assume that it's not going to be the next Beckett :p

Calling an AI amoral is still anthropomorphizing it and assuming sentience. The AI we have is the textual equivalent of a factory robot: it can generate content via mimesis and figure out ways to spread it efficiently, but it has absolutely no idea what it's doing or that it's doing anything at all. It doesn't have a plan (and you can easily see that when it tries to write: it strings together some things which on the surface make sense, but it's not going anywhere with them).

As a tool, yes, it can become very dangerous in its efficiency, but it doesn't have any more sentience than a biological virus. The issue is that the people who create AI are also the people training it because they don't see the point of bringing in humanists in general and philosophers in particular. What the tool does can be expected and predicted, but only if you're used to thinking about ramifications instead of "oooh, I wonder what this button does if I push it 10 times."

ChatGPT seems to be a decent search engine. Other than that, I imagine people see its outputs as "smart" because they're on topic, but they're nothing more than stringed together banalities.