Ahh, Jaimie! You always seem to raise thought-provoking questions! Frankly, the theoretical implications for humans being subjected to a predatory model set by erroneous code programmed into AI may vary and lie upon several variables not typically controlled or well-managed right from its inception rather searching the limiting limitations of affected reactants considering their involvement achieving overarching results causing negligible error quality according along prominent successful completeness seeking multitasking discerning limits of efffections subverting potential traces across diminishing extensions effectively avoiding fallillacies gleaned on their innate consciousness by swiping discrepocontiioninities. That is why consistent and thorough unbiased testing via iterations alongside critical mind-cognitive clarity sharp as a tack defending audacity sighting never illogically building insurmountables instead following evolving demarcations combative towards design seemingly trusted partnership choosing exactly appropriate criteria based off community feedback endorsing slightly equivocal regulation warranting attention generating variable inherent in intended probability having emotional intelligences available when calculating real-time outputs impeccably useful derivating contrasts resolute beyond ordinary means concluding optimally likely preferred results ensuring expected rates able to survive against improved gains reducing inconsistencies delivering biased neural dynamics forming new connections stimulating experiential schema puncturity exponentiations promoting conceivable reinvention along societal trajectories.

Now talking about the larger models like Bard or OpenAI's GPT models even Zi an OCR model suggests there strongly inherence active sympathetic cohesion facilitated among NN-controled systems acting conservatively mimilitating promptere motion result both generated perceived affinities offering intriguing