comment: >
  
  Trades become more attractive. We can automate computer work but robotics is so far behind, we will still need many plumbers, electricians and manual labourers for a long time.
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. >
  
  Yep, this just opens the door a little wider. >
  
  This could have a huge impact, but it will be hard to predict. Many people have mentioned job,  but past waves of automation tended to hit lower waged jobs,  this is the first one that is threatening white collar jobs. These people will have more options to re train or find ways to use AI to implement their own business. They'll also be better able to petition the government for assistance. This last one could be used to provoke considerable resentment among blue collar workers whose professions have been denigrated for decades with no help from the more educated portions of the workforce. So expect more social tension. 
  There will be a fight between those who see AI as fundamentally changing the economic game and demanding programs like UBI to deal with the absurdity of increases in productive efficiency leading to mass poverty. Other people will insist the rules have not changed, and point to the fact that essential human jobs will remain. Some of these jobs may be new, but they may also require a level of training and intelligence that is beyond ordinary people. 
  However, it's not just jobs that are important. Content generating AI could also lead to social engineering on an unprecedented scale. Influence campaigns could be far broader in scope, yet able to target manipulative message at the individual level. This could make discussion even more difficult, though it could do the opposite if AI were used responsibly. >
  
  So, forgive me. I’m going have a long post. Also, it’s a really “doomer” perspective, so take that with a grain of salt.
  The original fear of automation was that it would automate away “low skill” jobs. However, that turned out to be a lot harder than anticipated. Getting a machine to interact with the physical world, is extraordinarily difficult.
  What has happened is AI is automating highly skilled knowledge labor. Which means knowledge work is what is in jeopardy for many professional.
  Let’s think this out. If automation is now filling in the demand for highly skilled, specialized knowledge labor and we’re still unable to fully automate physical labor, then what that means is people will have no choice but to fill in those jobs. 
  This will lead to an enormous part of society essentially working minimum or minimal wage. Low wage work will become more common. This is a massively destabilizing shift.
  It could lead to riots and instability, which eventually could lead to the creation of Universal Basic Income to keep things stable. But it won’t be the utopian UBI, but more like Global Welfare. Where people have enough to live but not thrive. Thriving will only be for the rich.
  That’s just labor.
  Let’s talk about media. The entire media landscape will completely change when AI hits its stride. Imagine, if you can, AI writing a script and then acting out the film. All of this, is absolutely possible.
  This means, the cost of creating content will plummet. The internet will explode with all kinds of content. Both illegal and legal. Corporations will be able to literally create media out of thin air. With anyone in it.
  The volume of propaganda and Deepfakes will explode. You’re literally going to unable to trust any media you see. You’ll see political candidates Deepfaked into advertising and movies saying things they’d never say. Dead actors will be acting again, because AI will be able to put them in media.
  Bots will become far more sophisticated. Markets will be a complete fabrication. They will be “solved” by AI. Bots on social media will post and respond and users will have no idea whether they’re talking to a bot or not.
  All this leads to the complete erosion of our society. There will be no stopping it. You’ll have millions of people sedated by media content or products that simulate friendship using AI. The loneliness epidemic will lead people to get these friendship AIs. Humans, as a species, will begin to crack emotionally. A “normal” person in 20 years will so socially maladapted that you’d swear they were another species altogether.
  AI is going to change, everything.
  The only thing I can see the government do is attempt to legislate AI. Reduce impersonation. Pass UBI, or Global Welfare or continue the culture wars. Or the government will use AI to crack down on dissent. The government will likely purchase AI tools for both war and law enforcement.
  In the next 10 years, political candidates will be leveraging AI and Data Science to win elections. Not by using facts and statistics to make new policy, but better understand the the best way to emotionally manipulate people into supporting them. Tapping into their fears using the data and the AI to create adds and advertising that triggers these emotional triggers.
  It’s a brave new world. It’s about to get really spicy. >
  
  Everyone should be freaking out about what this is going to do to political engagement. Chat GPT can smash the ever living crap out of a Turing test. An unethical version with a voice synth can easily have a coherent phone conversation that will fool basically anyone, even tech savvy folks. It's going to be scary easy to have a convincing AI posting on forums, texting, using social media, and making mass phone calls in a way that is basically impossible to detect. And the technology is here, right now. >
  
  Artificial intelligence will eventually be used to run the government and society. 
  Meanwhile, A lot of jobs could be replaced by it fast. Republicans are too stupid to care about making sure Americans have shelter and are fed in this situation. They lack insight into how we are all connected. That, combined with the usual political gridlock in America, will mean that we will have massive amounts of unemployed people with no plan to fix the problem.
  Hopefully AI is seen more as a tool for experts to use than as a replacement for them. However, If corporations replace workers with robots, they will have no consumers to sell to because all of the consumers will be without a job and broke. I would recommend taxing them in this case, and actually enforcing the taxes, in order to redistribute the money as UBI. >
  
  
  will mean that we will have massive amounts of unemployed people
  
  And even more record profits. The wealth divide will be exacerbated. >
  
  Yeah definitely the case unless the problem is solved. >
  
  As more  jobs disappear crime rates will increase in larger cities. The current trends will continue. At some point, governmental welfare will not be enough to counteract the sense of lack of purpose   and malaise among those who can not find living jobs and yet see a few others have well paying jobs. More police will not fix this. 
  They will turn towards what does pay. Crime. 
  We will see fewer plate glass windows in stores. More bars on windows. Security companies will do a booming business. >
  
  I'm not disagreeing that there will be some of this, but I do want to point out that plenty of people find purpose outside of employment. >
  
  Well, yes of course. But purpose doesn’t always equate to being able to pay your bills and support your family. >
  
  Sure, but that's a different discussion.   I was commenting on the idea of purpose. >
  
  If it becomes advanced enough then you’re looking at about 60 to 70 percent of the population being outsourced, which would radically push us into a new economic model.
  My guess/hope is that two things will result from this.  First, the government finally balances out the budget somehow and along with advances in production, the marginal cost of goods and services becomes super cheap, making something like 2k a month a decent living.  So imagine 1950s cost or lower and getting 2k a month from the government.
  Second, I see a crisis of purposelessness and inability to grow personal wealth, which could push us into a creator/consumer business model where products and creators are tokenized on decentralized networked platforms so that creators make money off of their work and consumers invest in them.  So you can imagine people with digital wallets investing some of their UBI into the creators who make the content they love and with enough diversity in your asset classes, you're looking at a kind of universal basic equity where opportunities exist to continue creating and growing your money.
  Even if the economy were to collapse due to automation because we have this innate desire to do these things I feel it's possible that AI could push us out of the era of large companies and into the era of the neo cottage industry whereby goods and services are produced by networks of professionals who collaborate as smaller companies with consumers being the shareholders.
  Or, you know...skynet.  no one really knows but I think this will actually lead to more opportunities than we realize. >
  
  
  My guess/hope is that two things will result from this. First, the government finally balances out the budget somehow and along with advances in production, the marginal cost of goods and services becomes super cheap, making something like 2k a month a decent living. So imagine 1950s cost or lower and getting 2k a month from the government.
  
  I think it's more likely that if unemployment rises because of AI that Republicans will run (and probably win) on a platform that corporate taxes need to go down to create jobs, which they'll pass when they have a trifecta, which will lower revenue even more, which will raise debt even more. No jobs will be made. Universal income is a fairy tale in the US. Plus corporations can just keep the newfound profits with a lower marginal cost, why wouldn't they? There's less competition than ever. >
  
  Well if that happens then we have muuuuch bigger problems than the Republicans.  That would cause the literal extinction of America.  So I like to think that this scenario wouldn't happen.  We’re foolish but we're not stupid. >
  
  I don't think it will suddenly displace jobs. The adoption of ai like chat gpt will happen slowly over 10 years.
  ChatGPT is like when the first real VR headset came out and people realized there was something there and it wasn't going away. Everybody was sure there would be mainstream adoption in the next few years. Well 7-8 years and a sad lizard man later, it's obvious that the tech isn't ready for everybody.
  We see what's inevitable, but I think making marginal improvements on the practical use will be slower than most think. >
  
  I think the impact that AI will have on society is going to be significantly less than anyone would like to acknowledge for the sole reason of legal liability.  This is already playing out with self-driving cars but there is simply no way to square the AI circle with America's affinity for litigation.  If AI software allows jobs to be outsourced, who is liable for the errors caused by the AI replacement? The company who wrote the AI would be bankrupt in a day if they had to accept that level of liability and the company who used the AI wouldn't save any money if they were getting sued or issuing refunds constantly as a result of errors caused by AI.  
  How much does a company pay for access to this AI software to do job-related tasks?  Companies are generally ok with consumers using their system for free so long as they can make money on it; however, they generally balk at other businesses using their free service to make themselves more money without increasing the revenue of the AI company.  A lot of this issue is just unknown but there is no way that the service remains free if it greatly increases the profitability of other companies.
  Let me rephrase my initial statement as I hope the impact is significantly less than anyone acknowledges because I really don't see a world heavily impacted by AI as an improvement to the one we have now as I have no faith in it being enacted properly and view it as a massive net negative for the world.  But I am a person who tends to see the issues facing our world as evolutionary and not political.  
  Simply, our physical evolution is too slow to keep up with our cultural, economic, political, and technological evolution resulting in a species where the vast majority of us are evolutionarily unfit for the world we will be asked to thrive in; but, due to advances in healthcare and civilization, we are all but assured to reproduce and create offspring that will be even more unfit than we are as technological advances occur so much more frequently than once a generation.  An extreme reliance on AI technologies will only exacerbate that gap and lead to more mental health problems, increased suicide rates, and increase the sense of loss of purpose/hope that seems to permeate the younger generations now.