To me, AI is something like a tool to get stuff done rather than anything else. I don't think that AI should replace humans in any scenario, especially the workforce. Even if an AI/robot were given the job of, say, picking blackberries, because the AI would perhaps be more efficient at its job, every human who had been replaced would be out of a job. Even though the jobs that can be replaced by machines are sometimes considered less pleasant, those jobs are also ones that don't need as much training; therefore, if someone's job is replaced by an AI (and the same happens with all similar low-level-of-training jobs) but the person doesn't have very much training/education, it'll be harder for them to find a job. The workforce would shift to more making AI do work than doing the work, which for me would be less of a welcome change, because if I, for instance, am a landscaper and manage to get a fallen tree using ropes and pulleys out of the roadway then that's satisfying, but if some sort of robot controlled by me has actually managed to get it ut then that's less satisfying.
AI is kind of useful for stuff where humans would be seriously hurt, annoyed, angry, chaotic, and so on, like space exploration and hazardous waste disposal, but on the whole I think that it should remain, in terms of its place in the world and not its technological advancement, where it is now.

Frankly, I think that after a handful of years, people will get bored of AI art. Eventually AI art will be able to produce so much art so quickly that people will just stop wanting it. It'll just become so commonplace that people will want real art that took real effort, because it was much harder. But there's still a whole lot of reasons it's bad...

Like, for example, it uses real human art to help it learn without permission from those humans. And sure, other humans use other people's art for reference, but to loosely quote this one artist whose name I forget, "there's a big difference between letting birds poop on your lawn and letting anyone dump their feces there." Humans using art for reference is not a major problem and it cannot really be controlled anyways. But AI, which can produce art much more quickly than a human, is a problem, and it is even one that can be controlled! AI could be set to use a small number of art that they are allowed to, but they aren't, because the companies make more money if the AI has a larger sample of art, so they use aaaaaaallllll the art on the internet. It's dumb.

And then there's ChatGPT... I think people are still reeling over its creation which is why writers haven't started pushing back on it yet the way artists have with DALLE-2. But I'm sure in a little while there will be a whole host of problems with it that people discover.

Even with solving math problems... I think it is more satisfying to solve differential equations and word problems and such on my own than to use a computer that can solve it in a nanosecond.

I definitely think that we should CHECK our sources before using them in our research papers. I had a science fair today and one of the "facts" included in a poster was that, before refrigerators and ice boxes, Russians would put frogs in their milk to keep it fresh. Turns out, that was from an unreliable source, and when my mom contacted my grandmother, who lived in Latvia for a while while it was part of the USSR, she said that that is nonsense, and although there was a folktale about the tsar doing that thousands of years ago, that was just a folktale and not true at all. 

When I say check first, I mean you need to do more research on that website before you use it. Also, ALWAYS GIVE CREDIT. One cool way to do so is Footnotes. look up how to do it on your device.

One of my other points is, if AI got access to that resource, yeah some bad stuff could happen; it could say that putting frogs in your milk is OK if it didn't know how to check sources. And anyway AI is imperfect; so many people just say, "oh, robots don't make mistakes so we can trust robots to do all kinds of jobs" and that is NOT true; robots are programmed by humans, and even if the robot was programmed and built by an AI, somewhere down the line there was a human invovled, and humans are IMPERFECT, ok? AI is only good as the information it is fed.

It is always a good idea to double check your sources, whether online, on TV, in the news, or in books! - Admin

Gosh, I'm late to the discussion *sigh* but here goes, better late than never!

I think robots and AI are very useful for things like calculating complex math problems, going down into horrible mines to extract minerals and jewels (this would be only for robots, of course), etc. But they should never, ever be used for writing and art, for the reasons everyone's stated already. 

Unfortunately, the trouble is that they are already being used to write things. For instance, the Daily Mirror (a British newspaper) recently released its first article written by AI. It also fired a great many journalists. Of course, the Daily Mirror is a tabloid newspaper and not of the same style as The Guardian or Le Monde or other serious newspapers. But it just goes to show that there are companies who will use AI because it saves money, and because they don't care about rewarding humans for their creative efforts. Another publication, a science fiction magazine, had to stop receiving submissions temporarily because it was receiving so many submissions that were written by AI. Even the best publications may inadvertently publish something written by AI if they don't check carefully and verify that it was written by a human.

However, the worst thing about AI is its ability to spread misinformation. Chatbots, for instance, can be made to appear to be real people on Facebook, Twitter, or other social media sites, and they can be programmed to spout whatever ideas the chatbot creator wants them to. This has actually happened - I was reading in The Guardian the other day about how an Israeli businessman calling himself "Jorge" was recently discovered to be using chatbots on social media sites to influence mass events such as elections. (It was a really fascinating article XD) Of course, even though it was in the Guardian, it may be untrue, but I think it's pretty probable that it did happen - and anyway, it always could happen later on. Other chatbots may dig up untrue or misleading information when used as search engines, or produce images that are just like photographs in order to trick someone into believing that a particular event happened.

It's also worrying how many people seem to think that chatbots are intelligent and emotional. They are excellent at portraying intelligent, emotional characters - Bing, for instance, is positively over-emotional (it told a New York Times reporter, repeatedly, that it loved him!!) But that's just what it appears to be. It's really only a program, and the sooner everyone remembers that, the better.

I think the solution to all this is to take a step back and "de-Internetize" our world a little. For instance, people could stop using social media and connect with each other in the real world instead. (Btw, I think the CB is different because everyone on here is literary and creative - it's a way to meet people who are on your wavelength rather than just random strangers who may have nothing in common with you. The literary quality of everyone's comments, such as the witticisms and descriptions and unique ways of expressing yourself, also mean that surely no one on here is a chatbot - it's different from Facebook where the person you're talking to can just say "hi how are you, I'm fine" which is easy for a chatbot to do. Just to clarify.) Newspapers and magazines also MUST commit to only accepting work from verified human beings. Maybe they could also go back to being printed, instead of digital. And society should accept that photographs and online articles or stories can no longer be trusted as evidence or credible sources of information. Instead, textbooks, encyclopedias, printed magazines, and books by serious authors and researchers should be considered sources of information. (I've spent my whole life relying on them for information - although I also use websites and articles in the digital versions of some newspapers, albeit with more caution and less trust - so it CAN be done.)

Anyway, that's what I think. I might be back later with more ideas, but i'd better stop here cause this is getting way too long...