Using chatbots and feeling ok about it seems like a no-brainer. It's technology that provides me a multiple percentage point productivity boost, it's used by over a billion people, and a boycott of chatbots is well outside the optimal or feasible space of actions to help the world.

I think the restaurant analogy fails because ChatGPT was not developed in malice, just recklessness. For the open source models, there's not even an element of greed.

I’m not using ChatGPT or any of its ilk and plan to continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Basically for the rough reasons described by OP.

I see people make the argument that an additional subscriber doesn’t make a big difference on the margin. But as far as individual choices consumer choices go, that’s all the leverage you have!

I think most people would agree that the eventual logical outcome of this technology is highly volatile, potentially including some very very negative outcomes in the mix. I think basic moral logic compels us not to engage with something like that. Doing otherwise is like destroying the commons but with no easy way of reparation.

Justifying it with “it increases my productivity” seems laughable and ironic when you consider the long term consequences.

The way I’m approaching this internally though is kind of like most vegans approach their choice, I think. It’s becoming a life choice, a moral one, and I think ultimately the right one. But I do not want to be militaristic about it. And while everyone is using ChatGPT around me I continue to love them and will do so until the end.

I already emailed you about this but it might be useful to share here too for feedback.

I think it would be bad to use a technology if:

1. Using the technology itself is an existential risk (i.e. if ChatGPT might kill all humans if I ask the wrong question)
2. Using it will increase the amount of resources into making it powerful enough for situation (1) to apply

I don't think (1) is currently the case with ChatGPT, and I think people like Eliezer agree.

I think using ChatGPT, even the paid version, won't increase the resources going into AI capabilities because the big AI companies aren't funding constrained. If OpenAI needed another billion dollars, they'd just sell a billion dollars worth of stock. My $20 per month probably increases the price people would pay for that stock, but that just reduces the dilution existing shareholders face and has no real effect on their ability to get funding if they need it.

I might feel differently if my usage increased other people's usage of ChatGPT (although I also think hype is so high it would be very difficult to meaningfully increase it), if I was part of a big enough coalition that our boycott was meaningful and noticable, or if I was using it at a scale where the money paid to OpenAI was significant (I would consider free-riding with open source models to avoid funding capabilities).