One difficulty to bear in mind, if you do want to use "ain't", is that non-standard formations tend to occur not singly, or in random combinations, but in restricted compatible clusters. They also tend to require a certain accent and intonation.
For instance, a modern "east London" use of "ain't" would tend to be supported by double negatives, the use of "was" instead of "were", a particular accent, etc., while the 18th century "aristocratic" use would have had an entirely different cluster of accompanying formulations.
If you use a form such as "ain't" in isolation, therefore, among standard speech components, and with a non-native accent, it won't sound natural or impressive: quite the contrary.
It's a little like cloth caps and gaiters, in that respect.
"whom" > "who" (as the pronoun here is the subject of "use", not the object of "know").You had better let me know whom of native English speakers use it.
Best wishes,
MrP

Interested in Language