Ideally all creators to be as thoughtful and careful as you. But we all know 1) there will be plenty of builders will build and launch regardless of how ready the app is, 2) users happily use whatever's engaging, convenient, and low-cost, while ignoring problems with privacy, security, and whether the product is net negative for a % of users (see TikTok, Twitter, Whisper).
If the technology is here, then the products will exist, and regulation isn't going to come in time to stop it.
The big difference here is that TikTok, Twitter, Whisper actually have working technology, in spite of ethical concerns. What I am saying is that the people who want to use GPT-3 for business use case X, Y, and Z probably have not thought deeply enough about the limitations/implications of large language model methodology on specific nuances of X, Y, Z tasks.
Have you considered the fact that GPT-3 can't actually look up any information? Consider the implications of that before suggesting that GPT-3 could be used for therapy.
How well this would work in practice is up for debate.
1. What if an AI therapy bot tells a depressed person to kill themselves? How do you get a language model to obey confidentiality rules? How do you prevent it from memorizing and regurgitating someone's mental health conversation to another patient?
2. I think the implications of replacing journalists with far cheaper automated systems (with substantially less fact-checking capability) have not been well thought out, and I worry that some VC bro is going to rush a product to market before policy makers / stakeholders have thought carefully about whether this is something that we want.
It's telling that GPT-3's best writing successes have been of the "philosophical musing" variety, not of writing accurate articles. I'm not sure whether that says more about AI or Philosophy.