AI itself is just a tool, like a hammer or a gun or a car. It is neither good nor bad; it simply exists. What matters is the intent of the person using the tool (in this case, AI).
If AI is used as a supplement to whatever we produce, that is OK. If AI is used as a substitute for our work and effort, that is not OK.
AI which deals with a specific task-- grammar checking, language translation, medical diagnosis, ...-- is OK since it isn't used to replace our own creations.
The problem comes when AI is used to replace our creation ("ChatGPT, tell me why HIVE is superior to USD").
Many people treat AI as the final authority on whatever topic is presented to it, and that just isn't true. Even if we choose to use ChatGPT-style AI-- since that is where most of the problems originate-- we can still override its output when we create our content.
I think the worst aspect of using a ChatGPT-style AI is how easy it is for people to deceive readers into thinking the content was created by a human being when in fact it was generated by the AI based on a prompt. It's the deception which is at the heart of whatever anguish and anger and uneasiness we have when we discover that ChatGPT-style AI was used to produce the content.
Perhaps this comment should have been made as a separate post; it's not the first time that's happened, and it won't be the last. I'm still trying to sort out some things before I can publish a long form post on this topic. I was just trying to contribute something new to the discussion.
At least for now, I will take it on a case-by-case basis. When use of ChatGPT-style AI is declared and noted, I reserve the option to upvote. When it's done in a stealth manner and I can detect that, I will downvote (such as it is for me).
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta