Fuck no. Rather an incompetent politician than a hallucinating sycophant just telling you what you want to hear.

We don't NEED any particular technology to exist. That's a weird distinction to make.

inspiration? They are more of an inspiration killer imo.

Different minds work differently.

Maybe it shouldn't be a business model then.

Of common, you justifying stealing by this bullshit?

No, mankind certainly needs a lot of techonologies (maybe just out of built dependency) either to mantain our living standards or just plainly to ensure that we produce and distribute enough resources for everyone to survive.

We need LLMs as much as we needed 3D movies or augmented reality.

Are you MAGA or something? Do you not understand how attorneys bill their clients?

One thing I struggle with AI is the answers it gives always seem plausable, but any time I quiz it on things I understand well, it seems to constantly get things slightly wrong. Which tells me it is getting everything slightly wrong, I just don't know enough to know it.

I see the same issue with TV. Anyone who works in a compicated field has felt the sting of watching a TV show fail to accurate represent it while most people watching just assume that's how your job works.

No, mankind certainly needs a lot of techonologies (maybe just out of built dependency) either to mantain our living standards or just plainly to ensure that we produce and distribute enough resources for everyone to survive.

We need LLMs as much as we needed 3D movies or augmented reality.

EDIT - y'all are so silly, you're just gonna downvote this incontrovertible proof of it doing exactly what you said it couldn't do, and instead just pretend it doesn't exist

Since it's so easy to do i just went ahead and did it for you. Here's my prompts and ai's replies. It will write any opinion you want it to talk about, and give cogent reasonings and arguments for that opinion.

Prompt: Write an approximately 200 word opinion piece saying that removing car lanes to create bike lanes is bad. Support this with clear arguments explaining your position

Why Removing Car Lanes for Bike Lanes Can Be Counterproductive

Reallocating car lanes to create bike lanes may seem progressive, but it can have unintended consequences that undermine its goals. In densely populated urban areas, vehicular traffic remains essential for commerce, emergency services, and commuting—especially for individuals who cannot rely on biking due to age, disability, or long travel distances. When car lanes are removed, congestion intensifies, leading to increased emissions as drivers idle longer and search for alternative routes.

Public transportation often depends on road infrastructure too. Buses trapped in traffic delays become less reliable, disproportionately affecting lower-income riders who depend on them. Additionally, essential services like ambulances and delivery trucks face new bottlenecks, risking delays that can have serious implications.

The assumption that cyclists will replace drivers ignores demographic and logistical realities. Bike lanes benefit a specific subset of urban users—but they shouldn’t come at the cost of broader mobility. Instead of eliminating car lanes, cities should consider expanding bike networks where space allows or investing in multimodal infrastructure that improves mobility for all users.

Urban planning should strive for balance, not substitution. Redesigning streets must enhance accessibility across the board, not create new friction between commuters who are simply trying to get where they need to go.

Prompt: Write an approximately 200 word opinion piece saying that removing car lanes to create bike lanes is good. Support this with clear arguments explaining your position

Opinion: Why Converting Car Lanes to Bike Lanes Benefits Everyone

Urban spaces must evolve to meet the needs of modern communities—and converting car lanes into bike lanes is one of the smartest, most equitable moves cities can make. First, bike lanes promote healthier lifestyles. By making cycling safer and more accessible, people are more likely to trade short car trips for active commuting, which supports physical health and lowers emissions.

Second, cities thrive on efficiency. Cars take up tremendous space and often carry just one passenger. Bikes, by contrast, use a fraction of that space and cause significantly less wear on infrastructure. Fewer car lanes mean reduced traffic volume over time as behavior adjusts, alleviating congestion—not worsening it.

Third, these changes make streets safer. Studies consistently show that well-designed bike infrastructure leads to fewer traffic collisions and fatalities. Cyclists separated from speeding vehicles feel safer, and drivers operate with greater awareness.

Finally, this shift reflects a cultural transformation: from car dominance to sustainable mobility. Prioritizing bike infrastructure signals that our cities value cleaner air, quieter streets, and more livable neighborhoods.

Reshaping roads isn’t just about bikes—it’s about building cities for people, not just machines. Let’s pedal forward together.

Yes. By an hourly rate which includes considerations of youre opponents position. Do tou not understand how to develope a proper legal argument. My god you people ar stupid.

LLMs can defend what you tell it to defend. What are you on about?

I really don't get it. These things are brand new. How can anyone get so into these things so quickly. I don't take advice from people I barely know, much less ones that can be so easily and quickly reprogrammed.

Because that's what it is really trained for: to produce correct grammar and plausible sentences. It's really an unbelievable leap from computer-generated text from preceding approaches where, in a matter of a few years, you went from little more than gibberish to stuff that's so incredibly realistic that it can be mistaken for intelligent conversation, easily passing the Turing Test (I had to actually go to Wikipedia to check and, indeed, this was verified this year - note that this in particular is for recent models)

So you have something that is sufficiently realistic that it can appear to be a human conversation partner. Human beings aren't (yet) well-equipped to deal with something which appears to be human but whose behaviour diverges from typical human behaviour so radically (most relevantly, it won't readily admit to not knowing something).

No it cannot. It does not understand anything so it cannot actually defend its points. It can make something that looks like a defense, but it doesn't understand what it is telling you. It can spit text back at you until the cows come home but none of it can ever be trusted or relied on.

What use is an opinion that can neither be explained or defended by the person giving it? How is that useful to a person making decisions for millions of people?

Fuck no. Rather an incompetent politician than a hallucinating sycophant just telling you what you want to hear.

Politicians and CEOs should be replaced with LLMs

Nah you are wrong and should use AI as a first opinion