There’s a lot of stuff it can do that’s useful, just all malicious. Anything which requires confidently lying to someone about stuff where the fine details don’t matter. So it’s a perfect tool for scammers.

(“…a computer doesn’t, like, know what an apple is maaan…”)

I think you’re misunderstanding and/or deliberately misrepresenting the point. The point isn’t some asinine assertion, it’s a very real fundamental problem with using LLMs for any actually useful task.

If you ask a person what an apple is, they think back to their previous experiences. They know what an apple looks like, what it tastes like, what it can be used for, how it feels to hold it. They have a wide variety of experiences that form a complete understanding of what an apple is. If they have never heard of an apple, they’ll tell you they’ve never heard of it.

If you ask an LLM what an apple is, they don’t pull from any kind of database of information, they don’t pull from experiences, they don’t pull from any kind of logic. Rather, they generate an answer that sounds like what a person would say in response to the question, “What is an apple?” They generate this based on nothing more than language itself. To an LLM, the only difference between an apple and a strawberry and a banana and a gibbon is that these things tend to be mentioned in different types of sentences. It is, granted, unlikely to tell you that an apple is a type of ape, but if it did it would say it confidently and with absolutely no doubt in its mind, because it doesn’t have a mind and doesn’t have doubt and doesn’t have an actual way to compare an apple and a gibbon that doesn’t involve analyzing the sentences in which the words appear.

The problem is that most of the language-related tasks which would be useful to automate require not just text which sounds grammatically correct but text which makes sense. Text which is written with an understanding of the context and the meanings of the words being used.

An LLM is a very convincing Chinese room. And a Chinese room is not useful.

It doesn’t matter whether you suck at hoarding other people’s wealth or you’re good at it. You’re still a shitty person either way.

Renting you don’t have to keep $30k on hand

Oh woe is me, I could literally fill a swimming pool with other people’s money, please feel sorry for me

If it really sucked so much to own a home, the upper class wouldn’t be buying as many of the fucking things as they could.

Owning a home is 100% upside 0% downside. You have your name on it and someone else pays for it. You use their money to pay other people to maintain it, skim the rest and fuck off to the beach. If you fail at this you wouldn’t last an hour at a real job.

Providing maintenance isn’t being a landlord. You can be a landlord and also do real work on the house as a maintenance person, the same way you can be a landlord and also work at McDonald’s. But being a landlord is not a job and provides no value.

Of course it’s exploitative, that isn’t a question. The entire purpose of rent is to exploit. The down voters are people who recognize that it’s complete nonsense to suggest housing rental could ever not be exploitative.

Landlords are purely evil, they are nothing but a drain on society, and if you disagree you’re my enemy and we have no common cause.

Owning a house isn’t a service.

I’m not going to use some weird alternative url to remove ai crap, just like I’m not going to append -ai or whatever it was to every google search. I’m just not going to use these services at all. Want me as a user? Remove the AI garbage. It’s that simple.