While
@GChief seems intent on passively dismissing my points by giving laughing reactions, and characterizing my replies as "entertaining" (I'll channel Joe Pesci here, ala Goodfellas "what, am I here to amuse you?"), I'd challenge him to go ask an AI a self evidently stupid question that cannot have a correct, factual answer, and see what he gets back from the AI in response. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Because I'll lay even odds he won't get back an "I don't know" or similar response. The AI model is programmed to give an answer even when it doesn't have one. Excepting certain impolite and hot button issues, of course, which are frequently suppressed from discussion by design. Again, an AI that tells you "I can't answer that", even when that is the only correct answer it can give based on it's dataset, has no utility, and therefore cannot be monetized. No one is going to pay for that, so it cannot be allowed to happen. So, it will lie, even more prolifically than a human would.
The masses will, however, pay for multiple paragraphs of verbose slop, because they think it sounds intelligent. Based on the writing skills of so many people now, it probably does sound pretty smart. So, the masses buy more garbage, and big tech profits handsomely. Mission accomplished. At least it's output is all ephemeral, so it won't be clogging up landfills.
Meanwhile, may I suggest there is plenty of AI generated content elsewhere online - many thousands of hours worth on YouTube alone - that those who disagree with my point of view may find far more entertaining than my postings, since they seem to be all about worshipping the AI and bagging on the naysayers. The best news is that you can get your very own AI to post marginally witty retorts here, so you won't have to waste your time typing them yourselves. Progress!
Guess I'll see you all over at the Soylent Green rendering plant.