We don't have to be happy about it, but we can't stop this new technology any more than we could stop the invention of the steam engine or the printing press. Technology always displaces jobs; that's largely the point of inventing it. By reducing the human labour required to produce something, it allows us to produce more using fewer resources and frees up the labour to go work on something else. This is why we went from 96% of people needing to work in agriculture to 4%.
I might lose my job over this at some point in the future, so yeah, I'm worried about my personal well-being. But you can't put the genie back in the bottle and avoiding use of ChatGPT today isn't going to help.
I disagree. Not using ChatGPT can be the start of a coalition of people that do not use it. I already have two principles: (1) to not use generative AI, LLMs and other AI tooks, and (2) to give preference to people and businesses who do the same. It's simple. If I find that websites use ChatGPT to help generate their content, I stop visiting and supporting them. If I find businesses using AI, I stop supporting them. I already got one other self-sustaining business to at least pubicly declare not to use generative AI and in my personal business, I do so as well.
If such a coalition grows large enough, then AI tools can be extinguished or at least made sufficiently prohibitively expensive so that they are strangled.
It won't. People have never defeated a useful new technology that destroys jobs. People widely like using these tools. You'd need to ban their use worldwide. If the US bans AI, China and other countries will become dominant in AI. Assuming AI continues to improve, there's an extreme advantage for any country that has it.
I might lose my job over this at some point in the future, so yeah, I'm worried about my personal well-being. But you can't put the genie back in the bottle and avoiding use of ChatGPT today isn't going to help.