This would fall under the "statement against interest" exception to hearsay, though, because obviously the person who originally said the thing isn't going to want to admit in court that they were committing a crime.
You aren't repeating a fact you heard him say, you are reporting what you heard him say.
If you want to use someone saying something as evidence in court, they need to say it to the court as directly as is practical. If the person saying it isn't going to say it directly to the court, then it needs to be justified with one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule.
In this example, it would be allowed because the person saying it wouldn't be willing to admit to a crime in court.
It would be hearsay if offered as evidence that you had meth in your pocket. It would not if offered in evidence you were enquiring about the legality, to show intent.
How is it not? I get that a chatbot is not a person with rights. And NAL.
But for all intents and purposes, it is a communication about legal advice. The way a lot of people use it is legal advice. They will continue to use it that way.
So for the law to then turn around and say that it's evidence that will be used against them is kind of messed up. It means confidentiality of your case is bought by paying a lawyer for legal protection, not because you actually need their advice over a chatbot's.