i’ve used it fairly consistently for the last year or so. i didn’t actually start using it until chatgpt 4 and when openai offered the $20 membership

i think AI is a tool. like any other tool, your results vary depending on how you use it

i think it’s really useful for specific intents

example, as a fancy search engine. yesterday I was watching Annie from 1999 with my girlfriend and I was curious about the capitalist character. i asked chatgpt the following question

in the 1999 hit movie annie, who was the billionaire mr warbucks supposed to represent? were there actually any billionaires in the time period? it’s based around the early 1930s

it gave me context. it showed examples of the types of capitalist the character was based on. and it informed me that the first billionaire was in 1916.

very useful for this type of inquiry.

other things i like using it for are to help coding. but there’s a huge caveat here. some thing it’s very helpful for… and some things it’s abysmal for.

for example i can’t ask it “can you help me write a nice animation for a react native component used reanimated”

because the response will be awful and won’t work. and you could go back and forth with it forever and it won’t make a difference. the reason is it’s trained on a lot of stuff that’s outdated so it’ll keep giving you code that maybe would have worked 4 years ago. and even then, it can’t hold too much context so complex applications just won’t work

BUT certain things it’s really good. for example I need to write a script for work. i use fish shell but sometimes i don’t know the proper syntax or everything fish is capable of

so I ask

how to test, using fish, if an “images.zip” file exists in $target_dir

it’ll pump out

if test -f "$target_dir/images.zip"
    echo "File exists."
else
    echo "File does not exist."
end

which gives me what i needed in order to place it into the script i was writing.

or for example if you want to convert a bash script to a fish script (or vice versa), it’ll do a great job

so tldr:

it’s a tool. it’s how you use it. i’ve used it a lot. i find great value in it. but you must be realistic about its limitations. it’s not as great as people say- it’s a fancy search engine. it’s also not as bad as people say.

as for whether it’s good or bad for society, i think good. or at least will be good eventually. was the search engine a bad thing for society? i think being able to look up stuff whenever you want is a good thing. of course you could make the argument kids don’t go to libraries anymore… and maybe that’s sorta bad. but i think the trade-off is definitely worth it

Reddit tries their best to reduce liability. In the past there have been subs that are focused on “raiding” and “brigading” or whatever you wanna call it. They hype up a bunch of easily impressionable users in a fever pitch and they go around spamming and vote rigging.

A well coordinated attack is enough to bring an active sub to its knees. This ruins the experience for the other users.

Of course the real reason, however, is because these types of subs when left unchecked tend to get too enthusiastic over time and create negative publicity for reddit - which of course puts them at risk of losing advertising revenue.

For example, /r/the_donald and their brigades and harassment https://www.wired.com/story/the-hate-fueled-rise-of-rthe-donald-and-its-epic-takedown/ which led to calls for violence and all sorts of tricky potential legal liabilities

or /r/wallstreetbets with their market manipulations https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gamestop-reddit-wallstreetbets-short-squeeze-2021-01-28/ that brought a lot of talk about government regulation

so they try to curb these types of behaviors right at the root and stem, in order to try and prevent it ultimately developing into something that could be a risk to the bottom line

i don’t think the always thrown around “more education” is an effective answer to everything

you can educate kids up and down about the harms of smoking- if smoking is advertised as cool in popular media, there are cigarettes with colorful and fruity flavors, and it’s easy for the kids to obtain then they will inevitably smoke cigarettes. everybody has known smoking causes cancer for a half century know.

if you don’t want kids smoking, then you must act with force to restrict something. whether it’s the restriction on subliminal advertising, the ban on colorful cigarettes, or prohibition of selling to underage smokers- you need some sort of ban.

i firmly believe in the near future we will view social media as we know it similar to how we see smoking. addictive little dopamine hits that will over time change the structure of your brain. we look back at the 50s and think it was crazy how they smoked cigarettes on airplanes, drank whiskey at work, and everyone bathed in lead and asbestos. they’re going to look back at our time period and see us similarly

so if I were to say “should kids be using social media?” I wholeheartedly believe they should not be using it until their brains are developed. much like I don’t think kids should be smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, or smoking weed

but the ultimate question is- what are the potential harms of a government ban and are those potential harms worth it?

that’s where I am conflicted. a minor not being able to buy cigarettes is something that I don’t really think hurts society very much.

but a ban on a minor accessing certain online spaces… how do you accomplish that? well, you will need to track people’s identities online somehow. this is the part where I think maybe the harms of kids using social media is not worth giving the government power to monitor and regulate social media websites.