Should AI generated posts be banned or otherwise regulated?

@ghdprentice, why is my stance so amazing?  I am on here because I like to talk audio with HUMANS.  If I have to talk to AI, then why would I need to talk to you or anyone else here?  It is my PERSONAL CHOICE.  RESPECT IT and  move on. 
In ten years or even less, many jobs will be replaced by AI.  There are going to be millions of unemployed people and as bad as the economy is now, it will be much worse then. 

Interesting what AI had to say about “Technological Unemployment”.

“Predictions that new inventions will create mass, permanent unemployment have occurred frequently throughout history, dating back to at least the time of Aristotle. While technology often renders specific jobs obsolete, historical evidence overwhelmingly suggests that these predictions of mass unemployment have been wrong. Over the long term, technological advancements have created more jobs than they destroyed, while significantly raising standards of living.”

Examples include:

• The Printing Press (1440s)
• The Power Loom (1810s)
• Electricity and Light Bulbs (late 1800s)
• The Automobile (early 1900s)
• ATMs (1980s)
• The Internet (1990s)

I guess we can now add AI to the list.

@lanx0003 Thanks for that clear walk through -- genuinely appreciated. We can leave things here.

(One thing I'll keep turning over: namely that LLM users weren't just equivalent to the control group on condition identification -- they were measurably worse. Unless I'm confused, that finding alone seems like the sharpest challenge to the "skilled users will figure it out" interpretation, and I'm not sure the thread has fully reckoned with it. But it's time for a walk.)

@mitch2 Here's what your AI said:

“Predictions that new inventions will create mass, permanent unemployment have occurred frequently throughout history, dating back to at least the time of Aristotle. While technology often renders specific jobs obsolete, historical evidence overwhelmingly suggests that these predictions of mass unemployment have been wrong. Over the long term, technological advancements have created more jobs than they destroyed, while significantly raising standards of living.”

Here's what my AI said in response:

"The historical claim is largely accurate -- previous waves of technological disruption ultimately generated more jobs than they eliminated, and living standards rose alongside productivity. The pessimists were repeatedly wrong, and that track record deserves acknowledgment.

But there are reasons to be cautious about applying that pattern to the current moment. Previous automation displaced physical or routine cognitive labor while leaving complex judgment and creativity largely intact. 

AI is different in kind -- it's encroaching on precisely those domains previously considered automation-proof. The historical sample may not be analogous.

The distributional point also gets glossed over too easily. "More jobs created than destroyed" is a macroeconomic consolation that the handloom weavers of the 1800s couldn't spend. Transition costs fall unevenly and can span generations.
And speed matters. Previous disruptions unfolded over decades, allowing institutions and labor markets to adapt. Current AI development is compressing that timeline considerably, which could overwhelm adaptive capacity even if the long-run equilibrium is ultimately positive.

So -- historically informed optimism, yes. Complacency, no."

Fun, huh?

@hilde45 - I hear ya, but all the doom and gloom, sky-is-falling, fear-mongering rhetoric out there lately seems to be unnecessarily oppressive.  I get that many don't like change, but I refuse to live by worrying about what might happen, especially when much of it never does. I certainly understand why folks from Missouri say "Show Me".