Move to alternative webs such as Gopher or Gemini, which make it impractical / impossible to monetize based on clicks / engagement / amount of content. The issue isn't that you can generate spam. The issue is that you can make money by doing so.

Which government is the question you should be asking.

For example, lets say I'm a authoritarian government that is hostile to other nations. In general there is a strong imperative to block GPT use in my own country except by approved users to make propaganda. At the same time it is a very useful weapon for me to use against my enemies. I can use the 'bullshit asymmetry theory' against them and drown their population in conflicting propaganda.

But you see unlike nuclear weapons, we really don't need multibillion dollar facilities to make these things. Midsized companies make these things easy enough. There is no opting out, unless of course you want a world wide police state to ensure that you're not making anything naughty with your computer. And of course you should realize your government, along with everyone else's government is making their own naughty versions of this kind of application anyway.

So, yea, some smaller EU countries won't make one because of the law, but the US, China, and likely Russia would do it anyway because screw you, we have nukes behavior that drives their other actions.

While I have plenty of cynicism about this and also expect it to at least partially play out like this, let me offer a more optimistic perspective on the same thing.

People come into media with different amounts of background knowledge and context. Currently, this is basically solved by a tiered system of 'knowledge' distribution. As an example (though I think something similar exists outside of the sciences too), scientists write papers that are read by science communicators who put out press releases which are read by journalists who write articles about stuff all of which is read by various content creators who remix all of this into their own content tailored to their specific following. Part of this is tailoring is knowing what context/knowledge your audience already has and giving them enough new information for the new content to be digestible without the consumer needing to seek out other sources. So when ChatGPT-N is reencoding the content for you, it can personalize it your level of knowledge, without wasting your time by either rehashing stuff you're already aware of or by including context that you wouldn't necessarily have known that you're missing.

This of course means that ChatGPT will need to know what you do/don't know...

This is an issue of capital allocation. Enormous amounts of private money have been wasted chasing dreams of monopolizing currency (crypto), monopolizing taxis (Uber/Lyft), and of course monopolizing the food delivery industry. There is little difference between government picking winners and private industry doing it. How many cumulative billions has Uber lost so far? Likely far more than what the Chilean government lost in a futile attempt to develop a domestic model of automobile in the early '70s.

Now even more of that monopoly money is going to be shoveled into consumer AI plays that will continue to waste energy, not to mention pollute the internet further with half-baked 'content' with the stench of Wikipedia and ArtStation all over it.

Maybe we should get an AI to write it.