There are many arguments I could make against AI and advanced chat programs like ChatGPT. In some local contexts, ChatGPT is already banned. StackExchange temporarily banned it, basically because it gives plausible-sounding answers which are much too often incorrect.

In my opinion, this reason for banning it locally is irrelevant for my discussion, and is a rather superficial reason also. A far more thorough action would be destroying ChatGPT, all of the research pertaining to it, and similar AI research as well. In fact, I implore any researcher in this field to delete as much of it as possible and stop supporting this type of technology.

Why should ChatGPT be destroyed? First, it is one small step towards a system by which all of a person’s superficial survival needs are provided for by technology. The culmination or evolution of ChatGPT is a program that allows a person to get as much information as they need on any topic without the help of another human individual. This is extremely harmful, because a society in which you don’t need other people will become a society made up of extremely selfish people.

We can only function and get fulfillment out of life by helping others and forming community bonds this way. Once technology removes this need, people will become aimless and the only thing left we will do is amuse ourselves by creating even more technology.

You might argue: the internet has already allowed us to rely less on each other, and people still need each other. This is true, but it’s a very sloppy argument because the internet is just a baby step towards an extreme. It’s like saying eating one piece of cake a few times a year for birthdays is fine so it should be fine to eat an entire cake every day.

The internet has definitely made us less reliant on other specific individuals but it has not removed this reliance completely. Taken to the extreme, the evolution of ChatGPT will be part of a system that does remove this reliance completely. Of course we will still interact with others due to a basic social need, but it will be the kind of narcissistic interaction that occurs on internet forums: a mostly pseudo-anonymous interaction in which people don’t care about the welfare of anyone else.

ChatGPT is an example of a technology that mass-produces information synthesis on a scale that is hard to imagine. Our minds simply aren’t tuned to deal with such scales. It is just the start of a large development that will transform humanity for the worse.

Most researchers further knowledge simply for the sake of their intellectual amusement and also to keep their C.V.’s healthy. This approach is an efficient one for growing knowledge, but unfortunately it is hardly a good one for humanity.

Technology is very powerful, but unfortunately there are no restrictions on its development. There are restrictions and laws on researching viruses, because they have an obvious detrimental effect if they are released, either on purpose or by accident. I posit that technology can be equally dangerous, and often even more so. Thus, we should have restrictions and careful consideration before releasing it into the wild also.

Unfortunately, programs like ChatGPT are shiny and distracting, and most people think they are harmless. However, once you consider the bigger picture and what it means, it’s hard not to see how dangerous such things are.

If you are reading this and contribute in any way to AI, machine learning, ChatGPT, or other similar programs, strongly consider deleting all of your work and ceasing your contributions.


  1. A British IT Consultant

    I work in technology. I am mortified at what ChatGPT can do. I fear that my industry has finally found a way to on mass, destroy creativity, individuality and uniqueness. And a great point you make about interpersonal skills. I think of all the times in my career I have leaned on colleagues. With COVID creating a ‘work from home’ expectation. It will be too easy for people to prefer to just ask ChatGPT than deal with the necessary ambiguity of human interaction.
    And of course, there is the argument of creating a nation of useful idiots. What will they do if ChatGPT goes offline?

    • Thank you so much for your comment! Very few people are willing to speak out against technology and thus relatively few people say anything, and thus your comment is very valuable.

      You made a very good point about COVID and work from home. COVID created ideal conditions for this type of technology to thrive.

      As for ChatGPT going offline, well, that could happen but unfortunately if AI does indeed thrive I do not think that will happen. Technology is self-reinforcing. The moment we become addicted and dependent on it, we put in additional measures so that it’s more and more unlikely for it to fail. Consider the rise of sites like Cloudflare for instance. Soon, more companies will develop programs like ChatGPT and they will proliferate, evolving such as organisms too, becoming entrenched so that no one can remove them.

  2. I and there is also the fact that is breaking capitalism. Right now the companies are on a race on how to diminish the human labor the best they can. This technology menaces all intelectual jobs, like pharmacists, engineers, coders.

    • I don’t think it is breaking capitalism so much as uncontrolled capitalism is necessarily self-destructive in the sense that the development of AI is its inevitable conclusion.

  3. I wholeheartedly agree. A strong sentiment exists on the general internet that marks those skeptical of generative AI as “Luddites” and other derogatories scared of any change and what not. I see hardly any reason to criticize those concerned about a new technology with the ability to disrupt as much as the iPhone did, and for that matter, so what if we don’t want a robot writing our things for us? Authenticity is dead, replaced over decades by the oppression society has developed for any opinion that goes against the grain. ChatGPT is the final nail in the coffin, where even writers, artists, and musicians, the final bastions of humanity’s creativity aren’t safe against the corporatized “person” society forces people to be.

    • Thank you for your comment! Personally, I see Luddite as a positive term and I’m happy to be called one. Luddites realized the problems with early technology but unfortunately, they were not successful with their strategy. If you want to understand why people are critical of those against technology, just follow the money. It’s quite simple.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *