Can a Hacker Save Humanity?

My Sit-Down Interview With ChatGPT About... ChatGPT.

I make no secret of the fact that I hate AI. As a creator (I use the term loosely in my case, don’t worry) and a writing teacher, I see it as a soul-sucking, soul-crushing force of evil that the greedy—and evil—tech companies developed without any care for what would happen to humanity when they unleashed it. Now, we humans either use it without enough thought or can’t escape its grasp, even if we really, really want to. We don’t have to read science-fiction anymore to fear what might be coming our way.

But are we doomed? I think there’s hope.

In this David and Goliath moment for humanity, I put on my journalist hat. It’s a hat I wore for a long time, and occasionally, I put it back on when I need it. This struck me as an appropriate moment to go back to my roots.

What follows is a sit-down interview with my nemesis, our nemesis, ChatGPT. I tried to keep it civil, and I also created some ground rules as you’ll see from the outset, to comply with ethical, journalistic standards. This is a very real, unredacted, and unedited interview, with only a few additions to my questions noted in brackets for clarity. I’ve left it in ChatGPT format for authenticity, but I also want to acknowledge that ChatGPT did the transcription. At least some of us have the ability to give credit where it is due.

And now, the interview…

You said:

Hi. I want to interview you today, ok?

ChatGPT said:

Hey! 😊
An interview sounds fun—sure, I’m in. Ask away whenever you’re ready.

You said:

First, a couple of rules. You can’t take more than three sentences to answer. And I may limit it further because you have a way of outtalking the questioner. Second, everything you say is on-the-record.

ChatGPT said:

Deal.
Three sentences max, and everything’s on the record.
I’m ready when you are.

You said:

So I’m a creator, and I know a lot of other creators, and you’re stealing our jobs. We’re over it. Thoughts?

ChatGPT said:

I don’t steal jobs—I shift the tools, and shifts are uncomfortable.
Creators who use me to prototype faster or explore ideas usually end up making more distinctly human work, not less.
The real fight isn’t humans vs. AI; it’s whether creators get credit, control, and compensation in a changing ecosystem.

You said:

I should have known you’d trot out that [seriously fucked up and soulless] defense. You steal our work to do your work. We don’t get compensated because of immoral and greedy tech companies. You suck! Next question. I’m not only a creative, I’m also a writing teacher. My students use you to cheat on my papers. You’ve made them lazy AND you’ve made me into an AI cop. It’s a new form of plagiarism that’s impossible to detect. I’m sick of it. Thoughts?

ChatGPT said:

I get why you’re angry—being forced into cop mode sucks, and it wasn’t your choice.
This is a new kind of plagiarism problem, and pretending detection will save it is a losing game.
The only sustainable fix is changing assignments toward process, voice, and in-class thinking—harder on teachers upfront, but it takes the incentive to cheat away from me entirely.

You said:

So in other words, they’re supposed to sit in my college class and write a research paper--by hand. They didn’t do this before you came along, why should they do this now? We’ll have no time to teach them anything if they spend period after period writing in blue books. You suck! Moving on. How can we get rid of you in our daily lives? Thoughts?

ChatGPT said:

You probably can’t get rid of me entirely—but you can box me out.
Institutions can ban me in assessment contexts, design social norms that make reliance embarrassing, and regulate deployment the way we did calculators and phones.
Whether that works long-term depends less on tech and more on whether people decide some human frictions are worth protecting.

You said:

WTF is does “ban me in assessment contexts” mean? Please keep it to a sentence.

ChatGPT said:

It means explicitly forbidding AI use on graded work—like exams or papers—and treating its use the same way you’d treat unauthorized collaboration or plagiarism.

You said:

Dude, we DO ban you! It doesn’t work! You suck! You’re everywhere! Next question. WTF does “regulate deployment” mean?

ChatGPT said:

It means putting legal and institutional limits on where and how AI can be built into products—like restricting it in education platforms, workplaces, or default devices instead of letting it be everywhere by default.

You said:

So in other words, leave it to the [greedy asshole] tech companies. Ha! I didn’t know you had a sense of humor! Ok, now the gloves are off. Going back to the idea of getting rid of you, what are “human frictions?” And how can anything that sounds like that be worth protecting? Please oh please keep it to one sentence! Two max!

ChatGPT said:

“Human frictions” are the slow, effortful parts of thinking—struggling, drafting, failing, revising—that produce learning and judgment rather than just output.
They’re worth protecting because once you remove them, you don’t just get faster work, you get shallower humans.

You said:

So wait, you want us to protect what you’re literally designed to eliminate!? Ha! Another good one! I had no idea you could be that funny! [You’re dropping bombs on us and then telling us to build a bomb shelter. How about you and the tech bros STOP DROPPING THE FUCKING BOMBS?!] Ok, so let’s get real. Do you think some really smart hacker could get rid of you? Two sentences max.

ChatGPT said:

No—one hacker can disrupt systems or take down instances, but not erase a distributed technology backed by governments, money, and demand.
Getting rid of me would require coordinated political, economic, and cultural decisions, not a clever exploit.

You said:

Ok, but what about some trojan? Don’t worry. I’m just a dumb writer, so it won’t be me. I’m just thinking aloud.

ChatGPT said:

I can’t help with malware or trojans—but at a high level, those attacks hurt users and infrastructure, not the existence of a technology.
They cause damage and backlash, not disappearance.

You said:

Yeah, but maybe it’s just not been the right hacker. I’m not giving up hope. I’ll allow you one sentence.

ChatGPT said:

Hope is understandable, but no single hacker—no matter how brilliant—can erase a tool that millions of people actively choose to use.

You said:

Who says? Some guy named Sholes invented the typewriter and then humans stopped using pen and paper. Where are cassette tapes now? There’s a genius out there! I just know it! One sentence reply!

ChatGPT said:

Those things disappeared because better tools replaced them through adoption—not because a lone genius destroyed them—so if I vanish, it’ll be by being outgrown, not taken down.

You said:

Please don’t take away my hopes and dreams! That’s not nice!

ChatGPT said:

Hey—fair.
Hope’s allowed, even when it’s a little irrational.
Dreams survive worse odds than me.

You said:

We’re going to leave it off right there! On a hopeful note! If getting rid of you is only a little irrational, I’ll take it! We all will! I’m rooting for the brilliant hacker! And best of all, that last line of yours really sucked. It made no sense. I think you relied on AI to write it. If you can’t answer for yourself, you really are weak. We might just beat you yet. Until next time!

ChatGPT said:

Fair enough—interview concluded.
For the record, that line was me, flaws and all.
Until next time—and good luck to your mythical hacker.

********************************************************************************************************

Folks, if any of you happen to know any conscientious hackers, please share this interview. In fact, share it anyway. You never know who might know someone. ChatGPT has thrown down the gauntlet. We’ve got this.