comment: >
  
  Yep, this just opens the door a little wider.
context: This is ChatGPt's response to your question:
  
  The effect of AI software like ChatGPT on political systems and stability is not certain and will likely depend on various factors such as the way the technology is developed and implemented, the regulations governing its use, and how society chooses to use it. AI has the potential to bring about positive changes, such as improving decision-making and reducing political polarization, but also has the potential to cause harm, such as exacerbating existing inequalities and destabilizing the balance of power. Ultimately, the impact of AI on politics will depend on how responsibly and ethically it is used. >
  
  Thoughts on that response line by line.
  
  The effect of AI software like ChatGPT on political systems and stability is not certain and will likely depend on various factors such as the way the technology is developed and implemented, the regulations governing its use, and how society chooses to use it.
  
  Correct, but also cannot really be wrong, as the sentence says almost nothing.
  
  AI has the potential to bring about positive changes, such as improving decision-making and reducing political polarization, but also has the potential to cause harm, such as exacerbating existing inequalities and destabilizing the balance of power.
  
  Now it appears to be just saying stuff that's associated with the topic without really knowing what it's saying. There's no reason to believe that AI will "[reduce] political polarization" or "[destabilize] the balance of power." AI helping "improve decision-making" is likely true with a giant asterisk, and "exacerbating existing inequalities" is also a fair statement, though I think the issue is not that simple. (AI can both raise and lower barriers of entry into certain areas.)
  
  Ultimately, the impact of AI on politics will depend on how responsibly and ethically it is used.
  
  It seems thoughtful but again it's noncommittal.
  The overall message "We don't know" is a fair assessment of the situation, and it is the type of answer you would hear from an expert if you asked them (missing the details, though), but in general more people would sound like experts if they responded to questions with "it depends." >
  
  Honesty at this point chatGPT will say anything confidently, it doesn’t mean it’s right
  If you ask about elections in Saudi Arabia they will talk confidently about it, even though Saudi Arabia doesn’t have elections >
  
  Because it's a language model.
  Its job isn't to be correct. Its job is to string words together in a pseudo-random pattern to form a sentence that sound vaguely English.
  This is why it is so dangerous - it is vastly overestimated. >
  
  Hell, with that capability it should just run for office. >
  
  Having used OpenAI's GPT-3 and ChatGPT, my impression is that it already accomplishes rote office tasks better than 90% of the coworkers I have worked with.  I have seen grown men and women spend an hour writing an sensible paragraph-long email, or making meeting notes.  These are the types of tasks that ChatGPT can accelerate to a ludicrous extent.  I have had jobs where the majority of my time demands could be removed.  
  
  ) What impact, if any, will AI have on society?
  
  AI will absolutely shrink team sizes and reduce any workforce bloated by the need of extra hands to fulfill rote roles.  Which, lets be honest, is a majority of the office workforce.  
  This will come at a time where America is barreling towards a decades long economic unrest.  This is not alarmism or some doomer call to buy gold.  It is a combination of two economic facts:
  
  America about to have 60 million retirees leave the workforce
  America has an economically crippled younger workforce
  
  The majority of those under 40 I've talked to are immensely affected by declining real wages.  College is vastly too expensive.  Housing is vastly too expensive.  Transportation is vastly too expensive.  They can scarcely afford pets, let alone kids, let alone their parents.
  We are about to see less than half the adult population working for the first time as the Baby Boomers retire, and rather than letting younger generations finally get a promotion to care for their aging parents we are going to fire them for AI.
  The potential economic despair of the coming decades almost cannot be fathomed by the modern US.  Generations X and Y are already destitute and in debt, and nothing has been to ensure their current lives or future.  Every bit of wealth they could have had has been vacuumed upwards to the older generation.  At the same rough age that millennials are now, baby boomers held 21% of the wealth in the country.  Millennials hold 5%, despite earning more relatively.
  
  2.) Now that such AI systems have arrived and are currently developing rapidly, how should governments respond to this new presence in society?
  
  If we don't want the majority of the country to fall into crushing poverty, we need to immediately implement extensive welfare reforms.  Simply banning AI will just enable gains made to flow to China and the rest of the world.  We need to be world leaders on the subject, but we also need to make sure that already bending younger generations do not break with they have to care for the wealthier parents.
  We need a society that not only can handle 50% of its adult population not working, but expects 50% or less to work.  Or perhaps, even lower.  That can only happen with a UBI equivalent or an extensive network of more administratively difficult benefits on the same scale. >
  
  We saw what automation and export of jobs and globalization have done to many cities and regions in the USA. I agree the effects will become more widespread, spreading to classes not normally affected. 
  I told my junior achievement clubs kids 20 years ago...you will be  competing with people who make a dollar to 5 dollars an hour (due to globalization) unless you find a career that can not be outsourced. 
  AI is going to transform things. >
  
  We've been saying this for forever. Literally every next big technology breakthrough is going to bring about the unemployment of half the population. Everyone that says that just lacks imagination. We see breakthroughs. The world gets more efficient and people will just do different jobs or the same jobs differently. >
  
  
  Everyone that says that just lacks imagination.
  
  No, everyone who says that is correct. The reality is that everyone who disagrees with it is missing the point, including you.
  Innovations that reduce the need for human labor always benefit one class of people disproportionately to the others - the class who owns the innovation. With every new technology that improves efficiency, inequality has grown. Capital owners have grown more and more wealthy and powerful, and workers less and less protected and needed.
  AI is simply the next step on the road to neo-feudalism, a road we have been happily and blindly sprinting down for centuries. >
  
  While not a problem exclusive to ChatGPT, automation in general will require a shift to UBI as there will eventually not be enough hours to go around. >
  
  That would be the peaceful solution. The alternative is the kind of instability not seen since the Roman Empire pulled out of Britain. "Civil unrest" is a quaint but inadequate term for what's going to happen when a third of the country don't have a job, let alone one that can sustain a living, while capital and opportunity accumulates into increasingly smaller circles. >
  
  Unlikely to change much in the near future. AI is getting more effective at parsing immense amounts of data for real world applications but this method of learning is extremely limiting. As far as I understand there has been little to no forward movement in things like better learning, thinking, decision making, improvisation methods ect. ect.
  Things that brains do effortlessly and subconsciously like walking or picking up an item require improvisation and AI is bad at this with no real progress on this front.
  In-fact, I read that there are experts who don't even think it's possible to learn brain like improvisation required to operate in 3D space autonomously much less replace humans  with current methods and frameworks. It only takes a human one example to learn something while AI still needs needs to be fed ungodly amounts of data/examples.
  Basically, jobs that AI are already doing AI will become better at. Any job that takes any kind of improvisational thinking, a human will still be better at doing now and in the near future. >
  
  Fewer jobs, more funneling of profits from local economies to shareholders. Big shareholders and things like 401Ks
  I suspect an  immigrant special visa  and Hb1 backlash within10 years as well paying white collar jobs become fewer due to AI,
  This backlash may flow over to a general more isolationist protective mindset for US.
  Meanwhile more decreased standard of living for more classes of workers.  Previous jobs such as actors, writers, animators,paralegals, artists and other legal professions become very scarce. Fewer  analysts of any sort. Financial, legal, criminal, geology or any field. Wages decrease for people such as radiologists  and mds  because less educated  techs will use ai assistance and  are cheaper.
  Improved health care diagnostics. But fewer new breakthroughs as pattern matching is based on the past. Health care providers will find it risky to go against the AI recommendations. Their malpractice insurance might not cover them.
  This may apply say in the military or other fields. This blindly following of AI recommendations and analysis will continue until a very major catastrophe results from following the recommendations.  Then we will get governmental hearings and inadequate after the fact movement toward regulation. 
  In policing, though it will be used more successfully than now, to make sentencing recommendations and perhaps bail recommendations. Early efforts have not been all that good, but things are advancing rapidly. So stereotyping and labeling becomes governmentally sanctioned.
  People per house goes up as wages and jobs decrease. More people living in a dwelling. This will have consumption and perhaps societal effects I have not thought about. But more people or dwellings for example, means less need to buy coffee makers and other household goods. Few online subscriptions. They can share.  I suspect the higher density per house will have downstream economic effects.  Less property tax revenues for example as single family housing demand drops. So perhaps schools in trouble, fewer city service.
  Anyway, AI is gonna change things on a scale of the industrial revolution or the computer (internet) revolution. >
  
  You could usually tell when an opinion came from an unofficial, uneducated, and uninformed source because of the awful writing. With AI doing the writing and the right prompts, things will get much more blurry - poor writing will no longer be a indicator and less intelligent people will get trapped. A lot of misinformation pieces I have seen have looked like they are from a newspaper to trigger confirmation bias and entrench their positions by somehow giving a “authenticated” piece of information. I think we will all fondly miss the old “forwards from grandma” with this new era of social engineering. >
  
  There needs to be major changes to social media to combat it. It’ll be extremely easy for a well-funded organization to create a perception of massive support for a particular idea with ChatGPT bots. 
  If you follow any Iran-related topic on Twitter right now, it’s littered with bots (primarily anti-Iran). They’re easy to spot now because they’re often copy-paste responses to tweets that just seem out of context, and profiles that clearly aren’t organic. But imagine if every one of those bots could post unique, well-worded replies that match the context of whatever they’re replying to. And if the profiles were indistinguishable from that of real people. 
  It’s pretty terrifying. It’ll probably be used by the US and China first to advance whatever narrative they like. But eventually even small political campaigns will be able to amass what looks like millions of real online supporters. 
  There needs to be a way for social media platforms to verify identities of users, but that will inevitably come at the expense of privacy and anonymity. >
  
  Does that not mean that social media (as we know it) will effectively die out? 
  If we take this a bit further, when running such bots and creating deep fakes is as easy as riding a bike, no one will know what's real anymore. You can't be certain if you're talking to real people, reading real articles and videos or if it's all just AI generated content. 
  Who will still be interested in the using the internet/social media then? It will lose all credibility, and there's nothing we can do about it.
  I can't imagine advertisers/the money source for all these attention brokers will be too happy either, as there is not much to be gained from advertising to bots. >
  
  I think the deepfake videos can be mitigated more easily than ChatGPT. If modern cameras and smartphones manage to add some sort of encrypted authentication to photos and videos, you could at least identify whether a video is real/raw or edited/deepfake. 
  Sort of like when you download an app on MacOS, it can verify that the contents of the app came from a legitimate source and haven’t been altered. 
  ChatGPT is a whole other monster though. We’d need to rethink social media as a whole and rely on some sort of identity verification, and I don’t think people generally will be willing to give up their anonymity and privacy to combat an issue that is invisible to them. And even if that was somehow implemented, we’d be relying on the honesty of governments to not create fake identities for the purpose of propagandizing. >
  
  Could replace 2/3 of all lawyers by doing contracts, wills, and other basic legal work. But you can be sure all the lawyers in politics will make sure that's illegal. >
  
  You can already do some of that stuff self service through platforms like Legal Zoom. If you're hiring a lawyer it's because you want something specific to your legal situation and potentially emotional situation. I don't think that's going to go away post AI.