Picture two different worlds with one similarity: AI has fully taken over.

One version of this world is utopian. Nobody has to do anything anymore because AI does it all—educates us, provides medical care, and practices law at its firm “LogicLegal Innovations” (yes, ChatGPT came up with that name). The world is thriving.

The other is dystopian. AI gets totally out of control, and the world goes to hell. No one is safe.

In both scenarios, you voice your concerns about AI and freedom of speech, right? Thinking about these scenarios and reflecting on AI’s role in our world, I realize we are completely irrational.

AI is only at the beginning of its capabilities. Life with AI could be much worse than it is now. Even so, everybody has strong opinions on it. And they really want to share them.

So this is me telling you, the reader and opinion-haver, that I don’t care what you think about AI. And here’s a little tidbit for you: Neither does AI.

Many are concerned about AI’s role in our world—specifically a lack of transparency. When asked a question, AI will provide an answer, but won’t be able to provide the source. So, how trustworthy is that information? If you are so concerned, don’t use it. You don’t have to use ChatGPT. There are valid AI worries, but we all know them by now. Writing more opinion pieces on them isn’t fixing it.

When Elon Musk started a petition to halt AI temporarily, it didn’t work, and when the government tried to slow the progress of AI, it didn’t work. As grim as it sounds, if one of the most influential men in the world and our own government can’t stop AI, why would anybody else be able to?

Look, I get that people are scared. I’m a journalist, and the entire profession could go down the drain soon because of AI. But I’ll say it again. It doesn’t matter what I think, what my local senator thinks, or even what Elon Musk thinks.

OpenAI is not in the business of “people pleasing.” Some people are opposed to AI. But at the same time, ChatGPT sees around 100 million users per week. Or to put it in Latin terms, each of the 513 Upper School students would have to use ChatGPT around 195,000 times per week. Even though many New York Times guest writers are not into AI, it’ll be OK.

And not only will it be OK—AI is growing constantly. Nearly every day there is a new modification to ChatGPT or a new OpenAI system; for example, GPT-4. AI is here to stay. And maybe more than stay—perhaps take over. And it’s not asking for our permission. So that’s why, honestly, I’m getting tired of hearing about it.

However, AI has positive impacts, such as offering feedback on papers, minimizing human errors, and answering simple questions. And because of these productive aspects, many have begun to lean on it. Some people, such as data analysts and financial planners, rely on it to do much of their jobs for them.

But I noticed something as I was playing around with ChatGPT earlier. Nobody likes AI more than AI.

As I wrote this piece, I plugged in the first few paragraphs with the following prompt: I’m writing a column for my school newspaper about AI. Can you give me some direction on where I could take the piece from here? Here are ChatGPT’s top suggestions:

1. Humanize AI
2. Education and AI Literacy
3. AI in the Arts

ChatGPT (and AI in general) seems pretty … fond of itself. And the wide net it’s casting is growing. Chatbots compile their answers by searching the internet, and plenty of anti-AI articles are out there. Yet ChatGPT never seems to find any of them.

Notably, ChatGPT recognizes gaps within the program. When I prompted it with, “What are some limitations within your system right now?” it told me it suffers from a lack of real-time and contextual understanding. There were no responses on how ChatGPT and AI might negatively impact humans and society.

If you put your opinion on AI, good for you. It’s great you are so passionate about it. But stop. It’s not doing anything or having any impact—certainly not on AI. As I said, I don’t care. And AI really doesn’t care.